Mideast Crisis Discussion on Thursday Night Talk this Week

I’ve invited Andy Stunich, who takes a much more pro-Israel line than I, to discuss recent and current events in the Mideast on KHSU this Thursday evening at 7:00 p.m. Originally we were going to discuss Iraq and maybe Libya, but I think the Gaza carnage will take up the hour.

It’s kind of hard to discuss the matter dispassionately as body parts are flying all over the Gaza, but we’ll make the effort. I’m told that the average age in the Gaza is 19, that the population is crammed into a density of nearly 10,000 people per square mile, and that there really are no safe places for Gazans to escape to. I’m also told that Gaza constructed very few bomb shelters over the years, but instead focused on tunnels. That Hamas purchased rocket launchers with little or no military strategic value in lieu of shoulder-held rocket launchers which might have actually deterred Israeli airstrikes (but are useless for attacking Israel). There are disturbing reports of Hamas executing Palestinian protesters today. And the Israeli government has warned its citizens to expect an extended campaign to root out the tunnels, locate hidden rocket launchers, etc. Not much good news of late, other than large anti-war demonstrations in Jerusalem and Haifa, but I fear the Peace Now movement of Israel is of very little political influence. I’ve read lots of genocidal rhetoric from both sides of the conflict, including some scary stuff from an elected Israeli official. Undisputed is the fact that Gazans are being killed by a hundred for every Israeli killed. I will argue, and Andy will undoubtably dispute, my contention that Israel has more power to alter the course of history (Hamas can kill people, but it’s no threat to Israel). But I’m not going to get into a discussion of which side is more or less morally culpable. It’s a pointless discussion in times of war.

Unfortunately this is a polarized issue such that for many people you either support one side of the conflict or the other. Not much room for nuance. But we will find that room on Thursday, though ultimately there are only two groups of people who can bring these endless conflicts to an end. Anyway, lots to talk about as the body count climbs. It’s a pretty depressing topic, but at this point I think it’s callous to ignore whether or not we can actuhasally influence events.

Well I agree that smart growth is probably a bad idea if you anticipate saturation bombing attacks every few years, but San Francisco is actually about 17 thousand people per square mile in density, and it’s actually not all that dense of a city. NY City is about 28000 people per square mile. There are some US cites as high as 50 thousand per square mile. And people are obviously happy to live there.

But if you were in one of those cities and being bombed, you might be able to get out. Not an option for most in Gaza.

“Undisputed is the fact that Gazans are being killed by a hundred for every Israeli killed.”

Thank you for taking on this subject. Asymetric is a good word for this topic, imho.

I’ve seen Israeli politics veer further and further to the right in my lifetime. It’s a model for me of what happens to politics in a democratic society when there is an “other” we are at war with. I of course have no love for Hamas or any terrorist organization, to be clear.

Having said that, I think the assassination of Yizak Rabin by a right-wing Israeli has had reverberations throughout time in the manner his assailant would have appreciated. An election in Israel today seems to be right wing hawk vs. not quite as hawkish.

For clarity on the Middle East and to get another side of the story we don’t get in the NYT or our media in general (did anyone see the editorial cartoon in the TS with Arabs using babies as human shields?) I recommend Mondoweiss.net.

Yellow anon. It’s easy to forget in HumCo there are between 7 and 8 billion people in the world. We do have to think about where it is appropriate for them to live. Better to start thinking now for 20 or 50 or 100 years down the line than 20, 50, or 100 years down the line – don’t you think? Maybe then those who get the great privilege to live rurally would still have that experience.

Ask Andy why 99% of the media coverage describes the conflict as “the Israeli military against Palestinian terrorist/militants”? When does Palestine have the right to have a armed force to defend their country, or does this right only apply to 1st-class (non-arab) human beings? Its astonishing to me how racist and militant Israel has become, considering their history as a people. And here in America we put sanctions on Russia?! What a joke~

bolithio, actually, I think much of the media has turned against Israel, but while I agree that the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves, it is legitimate to ask why they invested in rocket launchers which have no real defensive value. One Israeli political figure said, and I’m paraphrasing, “When we hit civilians we see it as a failure. When they hit civilians they see it as a success.” There is some truth to that, but it’s also in the nature of asymmetric warfare – when you can’t kill opposing soldiers you’re going to want to make them pay for the aggression.

This latest round started with the murder of teenage settlers beyond the green lines, which are the 1967 borders. Israel should pull back to those lines – they never should have settled beyond them in the first place – that was really stupid on top of being just wrong. Maybe Hamas would continue to shoot at Israel, but they would lose all international sympathy and that’s really big right now.

I know there are diehard older people, or adherents of older ideology, who would insist on the dismantling of Israel as a “Jewish state,” but that’s not going to happen. It’s survived for nearly seven decades – it’s not going anywhere. It would be great if Hamas unilaterally acknowledged Israel’s right to exist. I think it would reap a lot of positive results, and embolden Israel’s left – what’s left of it.

Meanwhile, here is an articulate and nuanced discussion of the issue. I disagree with much of it, but it at least makes an attempt at nuance.

“Ask Andy why 99% of the media coverage describes the conflict as “the Israeli military against Palestinian terrorist/militants”? When does Palestine have the right to have a armed force to defend their country, or does this right only apply to 1st-class (non-arab) human beings? Its astonishing to me how racist and militant Israel has become, considering their history as a people.”:

That would make the media, including the US media, just as racist. Why are they terrorists, not rebels? When are they freedom fighters instead of insurgents? When are they soldiers instead of mercenaries?

Seems to me that the ‘One State’ solution is popular in Israel and West Bank but nowhere else. And so, foreign ultimate guarantors of security in the region want something that the residents in the area don’t support.

Regardless of its 70 year tenure, Israel is still fighting the original war of its formation. So the tenure doesn’t have as much credibility of status quo as Eric claims, simply because of the passing of time. Events, not time, are the true indicators that a tolerable political/social accommodation has been created.

The real interesting question is why is it that foreigners see the situation so differently from the people living there? And why do us(foreigners) believe our perceptions are the true ones? I have some opinions but I’ll mimic Eric’s strategy and just say I’ll explain them later, and never do it.

I agree with Eric when it comes to the illegal settlements in the west bank. Israel needs to withdraw asap. In Israel we are seeing the dark side of parliamentary democracy. Netty the yahoo needs to cater to the far right whackos pushing the settlements in order to hold his coalition together. I try not to judge Israel on the actions of their current leaders. After all the U.S. was led by Bush and his neo con puppet masters to make a bloody mess out of every place they touched. Eight embarrassing years for many of us.
As for Hamas, just another martyr machine. More secular than your average Islamist gangsters. If Israel disappeared tomorrow so would they. But the Israeli right insists on keeping the Palestinians economically desperate so it feeds into support for anyone who’ll take on the “zionists”.

Israel is not fighting a war of formation. It’s formed, and solid as a nation state. Shouldn’t have been put where it is. I would have opted for giving the state a portion of Germany, but I wasn’t there and they didn’t listen to me.

The two state solution actually originated in talks between Israel and Palestine dating back to the 1970s, and polls in the less violent times actually have shown a majority of support in both camps. It used to be stronger in Israel, but so many leftists have left the country that the peace movement is at an all time low in numbers and influence. And Hamas has silenced the moderates in the Gaza, less so in the West Bank.

But neither a greater Israel nor an exclusive Palestine are going to happen unless there’s an all out war with one victor. It’s either a two-state solution or just the perpetual wars.

Well, it looks like the debate has already begun so I feel compelled to chime in. I would like to answer some of the the interesting questions raised.

Someone asked: “Ask Andy why 99% of the media coverage describes the conflict as “the Israeli military against Palestinian terrorist/militants”? My answer is that Hamas admits to activities and goals that clearly make it a terrorist organization/government under almost any reasonable definition of terrorist. European countries and the United States have consistently listed Hamas as a terrorist organization since its founding. The Hamas Charter or Constitution states:

”Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”

”The land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [Holy Possession] consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgment Day. No one can renounce it or any part, or abandon it or any part of it.”

”The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews [and kill them]; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: Oh Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!”

The last quote is taken from a Hadith which is part of Islamic Doctrine. In fact Hamas’ ideology and strategy is 100 percent driven by Islamic Doctrine.

Hamas has also lobbed rockets at Israel’s nuclear reactor. That is not an act of self defense. Not only would Israel have been deeply affected by any fall out, but so would the West Bank and Gaza Strip area. Only a terrorist organization with absolutely no morals whatsoever would intentionally try to cause a nuclear tragedy.

It is undisputed that Hamas lobs rockets at Israel that are designed to hit any random person. Could be a Jew or Arab – Hamas does not seem to care.

In my view, when someone devolves to the point where he or she is willing to murder random people just to make political statement, he or she has become worse than a terrorist. He or she has become a complete reprobate and for any civilized person to do anything but condemn such conduct in the strongest, most unequivocal terms is inexplicable.

I see many comments lamenting the loss of life and rightfully so. There is no question that many of the people being killed probably just want to live in peace and be left alone. However, the Gazans elected a terrorist group as their government and it has been said that people tend to get the leaders they deserve. In addition, those murdered Gazans are victims of Hamas and its suicidal, Islamic fundamentalist ideology. Many Hamas spokesmen have articulated Hamas’ strategy of intentionally causing civilian deaths among its own people in order to further public opinion away from Israel.

As far as the alleged disproportionate response, people and nations have a right to use self defense until the threat is eliminated. Here, Israel has not been able to stop the rocket attacks so to say it is using too much force is unreasonable. Israel appears to be doing all it can to defend itself as humanely as it can. Until we put the blame squarely on Hamas, we are co-conspirators in the Hamas strategy to cause its own citizens to suffer. If we do not stop giving Hamas sympathy it does not deserve and do not stop condemning Israel for simply trying to stop terrorism against its people, we are part of the problem. And believe me, this problem is going to get infinitely worse. As Hamas gains more and more sympathy and better, more long range rockets, it will get even more bold and the next round between Hamas and Israel will result in violence that grows exponentially. When Hamas starts inflicting serious damage on Tel Aviv and other vital Infrastructure, Israel’s response will be far less surgical. Can you blame them? They cannot leave as they have no where to go so if Hamas insists as it does on supplanting all of Israel with an Islamic Caliphate, there is no hope for peace.

The Gazans have created their own Hell. The best bet for the Gazans is to make peace and work in conjunction with Israel. Gazans could work during the day in Israel and have more open borders. With great beaches Gaza, should it shed its Jew hatred, could be a decent, relatively prosperous place to live. But as Jesus said, he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

“In my view, when someone devolves to the point where he or she is willing to murder random people just to make political statement, he or she has become worse than a terrorist.”

So is that what Israel has become in the last three weeks? Schools, playground and hospitals seem to be their favorite targets, claiming that they are shooting a someone with a rocket launcher.

And based on what the political leaders of the State say, Im sure they would love an excuse to have a less surgical response. Lets quote members of the Israeli Parliament:

“They have to die and their houses should be demolished so that they cannot bear any more terrorists,” Shaked said, adding, “They are all our enemies and their blood should be on our hands. This also applies to the mothers of the dead terrorists.”

Israel targets the rockets. Hamas should be blamed for using its people as shields. Moreover, it is just not accurate to claim that schools, playgrounds and hospitals are the Israelis’ favorite targets. The Israelis know they lose politically when such targets are hit and, in my opinion, they do their best to avoid such targets. The terrorists are famous for causing such damage and blaming Israel. The lady you quote is from a minority Jewish religious party. She hardly speaks for most Israelis who are secular. Conversely, most Gazans do share the religion of their Hamas Government – Islam. Also, Israel has been under periodic attack for decades and such conduct breeds a radical response. Jews are typically overwhelmingly liberal and left leaning. They are moving to the right as a direct result of the terrorists’ clearly expressed intent to destroy the country and supplant it with an Islamic Caliphate and the terrorism that results. Also, if you look at the full context of what Shaked has stated, her sentiments are largely true. These terrorists are treated as heroes in Palestinian culture and the mothers get a great deal of respect and often financial remuneration for having raised a martyr. There is in Gaza an overwhelming conspiracy to cause terrorism against Israel that shows no sign of abating. Hence, a very large segment of the population is quite guilty of the murders that occur and the related killing of Gazans when Israel responds. Conversely, the Israelis, if left alone, would leave the Gazans alone, but the Gazans will not leave the Israelis alone no matter what Israel agrees to.

“One Israeli political figure said, and I’m paraphrasing, ‘When we hit civilians we see it as a failure. When they hit civilians they see it as a success.’ There is some truth to that, but it’s also in the nature of asymmetric warfare – when you can’t kill opposing soldiers you’re going to want to make them pay for the aggression.”

Interesting spin, considering that the last I heard the death toll in the current conflict was that the Palestinian militants had killed about 50 Israeli soldiers and I believe 3 civilians. Meanwhile, Israel had killed over 1,000 Palestinians, more than 70% of them civilians. Asymmetric indeed.

Nice try Andy but what about the settlements? Last time I checked Hamas was not in charge in the west bank. Israel has rewarded the more moderate Palestinian Authority by bringing in armed whackos to steal their land. Kinda feels like eastern Ukraine.

Andy, let us know when the Israelis stop building new settlements on Palestinian land in the West Bank, when they dismantle those that have been built in the past, and when they withdraw from all the West Bank land that they are illegally occupying. If Palestinian attacks on Israel continue after that, my sympathies will be unequivocally with the Israelis.

What makes it “their land.” Seems to me that if it is lawfully purchased Jews should be able to live on it. Arabs in Israel get to live where they can afford to live. The West Bank is Israel’s ancient homeland and there is no moral or legal reason why Jews cannot live there.

Eric, you’re just plain wrong. The Israeli government declares it is under an existential threat. It’s their own understanding that the country isn’t solid, it hasn’t been able to establish stable borders or harmonious relations with the countries on its borders. It isn’t a formed State (period).

And even you acknowledge that the majority living there favor a ‘One State’ resolution. What may have been considered before and rejected or whoever used to be there but is now not there is simply irrelevant and a frivolous distraction. You’re grasping at straws because the facts don’t agree with you.

I just wonder why it is that you won’t acknowledge the opinions of the people who actually live there and believe you have authority to dictate your personal desires on them? You have the attitude of a colonialist.

“By Israeli law, privately owned land can not be part of a settlement, unless the land in question has been confiscated for military purposes.[87] In 2006 Peace Now acquired a report, which it claims was leaked from the Israeli Government’s Civil Administration, indicating that up to 40 percent of the land Israel plans to retain in the West Bank is privately owned by Palestinians.[122] Peace Now called this a violation of Israeli law.[123] Peace Now published a comprehensive report about settlements on private lands.[124][125] In the wake of a legal battle, Peace Now lowered the figure to 32 percent, which the Civil Administration also denied.[126] The Washington Post reported that “The 38-page report offers what appears to be a comprehensive argument against the Israeli government’s contention that it avoids building on private land, drawing on the state’s own data to make the case.”[127]
In February 2008, the Civil Administration stated that the land on which more than a third of West Bank settlements was built had been expropriated by the IDF for “security purposes.”[128] The unauthorized seizure of private Palestinian land was defined by the Civil Administration itself as ‘theft.'[129] According to B’Tselem, more than 42 percent of the West Bank are under control of the Israeli settlements, 21 percent of which was seized from private Palestinian owners, much of it in violation of the 1979 Israeli Supreme Court decision.[69]
In 1979, the government decided to extend settlements or build new ones only on “state lands”.[44][87]
A secret database, drafted by a retired senior officer, Baruch Spiegel, on orders from former defense minister Shaul Mofaz, found that some settlements deemed legal by Israel were illegal outposts, and that large portions of Ofra, Elon Moreh and Beit El were built on private Palestinian land. The “Spiegel report” was revealed by Haaretz in 2009. Many settlements are largely built on private lands, without approval of the Israeli Government.[130] According to Israel, the bulk of the land was vacant, was leased from the state, or bought fairly from Palestinian landowners.
Invoking the Absentee Property Law to transfer, sell or lease property in East Jerusalem owned by Palestinians who live elsewhere without compensation has been criticized both inside and outside of Israel.[131] Opponents of the settlements claim that “vacant” land belonged to Arabs who fled or collectively to an entire village, a practice that developed under Ottoman rule. B’Tselem charged that Israel is using the absence of modern legal documents for the communal land as a legal basis for expropriating it. These “abandoned lands” are sometimes laundered through a series of fraudulent sales.[132]
According to Amira Hass, one of the techniques used by Israel to expropriate Palestinian land is to place desired areas under a ‘military firing zone’ classification, and then issue orders for the evacuation of Palestinians from the villages in that range, while allowing contiguous Jewish settlements to remain unaffected.[133]”

They Arabs were offered more than 90 percent of the West Bank in exchange for peace and they turned it down. Moreover, Hamas Charter does not say it is fighting for the West Bank. The Hamas Charter admits that Hamas is fighting to exterminate Israel. But all Hamas is achieving is the killing of some Jews and many Arabs. Nothing justifies the acts of terrorism against the Israelis.

I agree, nothing justifies the acts of terrorism by Palestinian militants against the Israelis. Of course it’s also true that nothing justifies the acts of state terrorism by Israel against the Palestinians. There are no blameless militant leaders on either side in this struggle, just violent sociopaths at the leadership level on both sides, feeding off each other’s bloodlust and perpetuating the cycle of violence that gives meaning to their sick, twisted, morally empty lives.

NAN, I don’t know what you mean by an “existential threat,” but the country is solid. It has a constitution, and it’s been able to effectively protect its borders since its inception. The problem is that it’s expanded its borders. But inside, it’s a working democracy, mostly Jewish, but with Arab citizens as well who are pretty well off and not moving to Arab countries. It has a distinct culture, a sense of history, and probably the most effective military in the world for its numbers. I mean, I don’t know, what is your definition of country formation?

And I don’t know that the majority favor a “one state solution,” whatever that means. I guess you’re including Hamas which would like to destroy Israel, and I’m pretty certain that most Israelis do not want to take over the West Bank and Gaza. The polling over the years has consistently undermined your claim.

But assuming you’re right, what exactly is the “one state solution” you say they all support?

Interesting spin, considering that the last I heard the death toll in the current conflict was that the Palestinian militants had killed about 50 Israeli soldiers and I believe 3 civilians. Meanwhile, Israel had killed over 1,000 Palestinians, more than 70% of them civilians. Asymmetric indeed.

The claim, and I don’t know whether it’s true, is that Hamas is deliberately putting its launchers in civilian-dense neighborhoods. Probably Hamas is doing just that. According to the Palestinian News services, Hamas executed 20 people who were protesting their actions yesterday. In the past, they’ve killed people they believed to be collaborators and dragged their bodies around the streets from motorcycles, so it wouldn’t really surprise me.

For those who can access Facebook, here’s map of what are apparently confirmed rocket launcher sites.

This is an interview some of the apologists for Israel have been spreading around. If what the guy is saying is true, there’s a point to consider. But he didn’t come to the interview with any evidence, and he certainly didn’t seem all that phased by the news of the four kids.

At one level, how can I disagree with you? But at another level, it seems reasonable to ask why both sides are behaving in the ways they are behaving. And I think the answer goes well beyond the leaders and people on both sides to involve the behavior of the world and world leaders.

At its root, the world’s leaders DID give away land belonging to one oppressed people to another oppressed people. The issue is that neither oppressed people matter. The small exception is that Israel is probably of some geopolitical significance to the US, being a mostly friendly foothold in a mostly unfriendly area.

In my opinion, the most disgusting part of this conflict is the way the world looks on and wonders “what’s wrong with those people?” Nothing’s wrong with those people — one suffered a genocide and was falsely promised a tiny place of safety by the shamed world community; the other had its land stolen and were not offered the opportunity to resettle in neighboring Arab lands or anywhere else. Both are responding in predictable and sad ways.

I disagree with part of Mitch’s comment. One can easily imagine the Gazans reacting to Israel’s dismantling of its settlements there several years ago in a manner quite different from what occurred: instead of destroying the greenhouses left behind by the settlers, they could have used them to grow produce; instead of lobbing rockets at Israeli territory, they could have strengthened their own infrastructure; instead of electing Hamas to power, they could have voted for a party that even the European Union considers terrorist; instead of using cement to construct tunnels into Israeli soil, they could have built shelters. I have no difficulty imagine a scenario quite unlike what we are now witnessing.

“What makes it “their land.” Seems to me that if it is lawfully purchased Jews should be able to live on it. Arabs in Israel get to live where they can afford to live. The West Bank is Israel’s ancient homeland and there is no moral or legal reason why Jews cannot live there.”

Ancient homeland? How does that work? Does that mean me and my kids can migrate to some place I can trace my ancestry and take land and resources from the current people occupying it? Then wrap them up in barbwire if they don’t like it? Doesn’t sound moral or legal to me.

Since I am American, my dollar is supporting Israels domination and oppression of Palestine. I reject and protest that course of my country. Just as I did with our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I do not wish violence on anyone, in Israel or elsewhere. Yet when I read this: Palestinian deaths exceed 1,390; 56 soldiers and 3 civilians on Israeli side, it is clear that Israel has the power and is using it in a brutal, careless fashion. From my perspective the aim is to demoralize, dehumanize and route all whats left of Palestinian dignity. Its utterly shameful. And the march of pride and Nationalism during all of this suffering makes me sick.

In most situations, someone eventually wins, and someone eventually reconciles to their loss. Perhaps a few persons unreconciled to the situation choose continued violence and eventually win some concessions.

In the middle east, Israel has repeatedly won military victories, starting with Israel’s war of independence, during which the surrounding Arab states were confident they would wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Israel has now tried to win a simple acceptance of its right to exist for more than 70 years, while fighting and winning war after war against the Palestinians.

Until very recently, with the right wing Israeli governments brought to power by the failure of other Israeli governments to win peace, every time Israel won a war it has tried to live in peace with its neighbors. Every time, the Palestinians resume terror attacks. They do this because they have the support of powerful surrounding Arab states, and Jew-hating European nations together with the Jew-hating American left. Defeat is never defeat — it is always regrouping.

Peace and compromise are self-evidently in Israel’s interest. It has been unable to achieve this because the Palestinians understand, quite correctly, that, unlike others, they will never lose. They remain bargaining chips in a geopolitical game, whether they like this or not. And, alone among nations, Israel is not allowed to defend itself, creating huge indignation whenever it responds to attacks against its citizens.

Compare the US response to 9/11 and a tiny band of terrorists from one of our “ally” states: the invasion of two nations, one of them completely uninvolved in the 9/11 attacks, the suspension of civil liberties in the US itself, the creation of foreign prison camps involving torture and other lack of due process. How many Iraqi civilians died as a result of the US response? How many Afghan civilians died? Compare that with Palestinian deaths. Certainly one death is one too many, but the comparison is still informative.

It has always struck me as remarkable that this situation has continued to exist throughout my lifetime. The willingness of so many Jew-hating idiots on the left to view Israel as an aggressor, given the history, is just proof of the depth with which Jew-hating is embedded in the “Christian” west.

You are now assigned to the protection of the people of the United States, which has been shrunk to the size of Humboldt County. The Native Americans who once lived in Humboldt County were moved to refugee camps in Del Norte and Trinity counties in 1948, when they lost a war with your great grandparents. There, they are supported by the people of LA, SF, Portland and Seattle, but, for the most part, they are not allowed to leave the refugee camps for any of those cities.

You won control over Del Norte county a few decades back, then gave control back to the Native Americans in hope that they’d stop attacking. But they now use Del Norte as a base of operations against you, launching attacks against you using the best technology they can slip past your efforts. (When you try to prevent the French from landing rockets on the Del Norte shore, you are pulverized in the international press as refusing to allow humanitarian aid through.)

The people in Del Norte have now built tunnels into Arcata, and have launched rockets at Eureka. Because the people of Del Norte have been unable to sneak better rockets in — thanks to your isolated efforts, and despite the best efforts of France — the rockets have only killed one or two Humboldters.

Please explain to me how you are going to prevent the people in Del Norte from killing your mother? She was born in Humboldt and has lived there her entire life. The same with your grandmother. The same with you.

I suppose you’ll just say you, your mother, and your grandmother have no right to live in Humboldt, because it’s not your land, right? So where are you allowed to live, given that the Germans killed most of your family tree between 70 and 80 years ago, while the world watched, and then your great grandmother was sent to Palestine as a refugee (against the best efforts of the British, btw) and set up with a role in a farm by a relief agency.

The smug inability of the idiot left to ask itself these questions is why I would never feel comfortable calling myself a leftist — it is too shameful.

Mitch, I hear you. Still, that argument would have more weight if there wasn’t the settlement issue and if Israel didnt have Gaza wrapped up like a concentration camp. 45 min from Jerusalem its like 35% reliable electricity? Extreme poverty? Its not very difficult to wonder why people are so angry. Terrorism is a desperate tactic. If you have F-16s, your going to air strike before resulting to suicide. Do you have kids? Imagine what it might be like for a 9 year old child who has been through 3 bloody attacks in their life time. Every one of them having several members of their family killed or mutilated by bombs. Its not that hard to to understand why people would result to such desperate acts when backed into such a dark corner. And what are the odds that the little PTSD orphans who survive this conflict will turn to desperate acts of revenge latter in life? More proof that this type of attack does nothing to help Israels security.

And sorry, the whole protesting Israels aggression equating to Jew-hating is BS. That is the same nationalist rhetoric as freedom fries and I support the troops.

Well I dont hate Jews and I protest Israels aggression. What am I missing? I dont view Jews and Israel as the same thing. There is a culture that is Jewish. Also a religion. Israel is a nation state. I dont understand how protesting the actions of a nation state equates to hating the people within the country.

Mitch — your last two comments are so much to my liking that I am dumbfounded. Bolithio ought to learn the nature of Hamas before any more anti-Israel comments are posted. Osama bin Laden named the founder of Hamas (Ahmed Yassin) as one of his chief ideological influences. (See the book “Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad,” by Matthew Levitt, p. 17). Children are recruited by Hamas and “martyrdom” is extolled as a glorious fate. Hospitals and schools are used to store weaponry. I could go on and on. Levitt’s book (published by Yale, not by a right-wing organization) ought to be mandatory reading for anyone who chooses to ally himself with a group that even the European Union labels “terrorist.”

The answer is that you are judging the behavior of the country differently than you would be judging the behavior of any other country.

You are expecting it to magically make some resolution happen that it is incapable of making happen. You are then expecting it not to fight back when attacked, if in fighting back it is forced to kill civilians who either willingly mix or are forced to mix with the people who are launching deadly attacks. People have been asking that of Israel since before it was created as a nation-state, and they ask it of no other country. The biggest “tell” — and I’m not accusing you of this — is when people smugly call those in the Israeli government “Nazis.” Sure. Justify that comparison, and then really look into things and stick with your justification. Good luck.

If the world treated Israel like any other country, the Palestinians would now be living mostly elsewhere.

Again, I don’t expect you to believe this or agree with it. But I’m pretty unshakably convinced of its truth.

“If the world treated Israel like any other country, the Palestinians would now be living mostly elsewhere.”

I dont get that. How does the world treat Palestine? Do they receive billions in foreign aid to finance their military? What makes Israel more entitled to aid that Palestine? Is it race? Is it religion? Is it strategic interest by other governments?

Its true that is all things were equal – and each country had the ability to ‘defend’ themselves on a level feild – things would be different.

The world agreed, out of shame, to a Jewish homeland. It just refuses to accept the idea that such a homeland has any right to defend itself. Government aid to Israel, IMO, is about maintaining an ally in the region, not in any way about supporting a Jewish state. The Arab countries were always allied with the Soviet Union and, before that, the Axis. The Jews, for obvious reasons, were not.

I don’t have a shadow of a doubt that Israel would happily give up all foreign aid in exchange for peace. Instead, it ends up getting American anti-missile missile systems in an effort to protect its population, and is then forced to pretend that they work. Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades; how long do you think Israel will last once the first Arab state gets a single nuclear warhead?

I hope you read the lyrics to Neighborhood Bully. I’m no Dylan fan, so I’d never heard it, but they are so right on I wish Dylan could sing.

In the middle east, Israel has repeatedly won military victories, starting with Israel’s war of independence, during which the surrounding Arab states were confident they would wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Israel has now tried to win a simple acceptance of its right to exist for more than 70 years, while fighting and winning war after war against the Palestinians.

It reminds me of a story my father told me about this old radical he knew trying to make copies from a broken machine. Over and over he would put the paper into it and over and over again it came out all black. He watched the guy who never once bothered to open the machine to see what he could do. He just kept pushing the button and swearing, over and over again.

At a certain point instead of fighting a new war where you kill a hundred Palestinians to ever Israeli, it probably behooves you to think, “What can I do differently?”

If you’re Israel, you have the power. You have the ability to alter the course of history. The Palestinians have no power in this except the crazies with the guns. The rest can’t even leave the city to protect their children from indiscriminate bombs.

I suppose you’ll just say you, your mother, and your grandmother have no right to live in Humboldt, because it’s not your land, right? So where are you allowed to live, given that the Germans killed most of your family tree between 70 and 80 years ago, while the world watched, and then your great grandmother was sent to Palestine as a refugee (against the best efforts of the British, btw) and set up with a role in a farm by a relief agency.

That also raises a question which has been long unanswered to my mind. Why did the Palestinians have to surrender land to account for European sins?

You are correct that the Israelis have the power to alter the course of history. It’s a shame that the politicians who might have done this are either dead or discredited due to their inability to find a “willing partner.”

And, of course, the Palestinians did nothing — absolutely nothing — to justify the theft of their lands.

The result: two people with legitimate claims to the same land, if you are willing to grant legitimacy to the United Nations.

So we have a result that does not strike me as all that unusual: all the attention is focused on finding out which one of two deserving parties who are fighting over a crumb shall be granted our beloved “victim” status, when they are both victims of the world powers, who set them up in such a predictable way that one might almost suspect it was intentional. Remind you of anything happening here in the U.S. of A.?

-Dylan can sing Mitch. This is recognized by anyone with a good ear. He hits all the notes. But of course he’s no Sinatra, he’s a blues singer in the tradition of Son House or Howling Wolf. In blues the emotions bring it across. Anyway i’m glad you like the lyrics. I hope Andy checks em out to. And if you want to take another stab at listening to his raw strained voice, Here’s the audio; it rocks:

-Mitch, We’re close to common ground. I think you’ll come around. I bet you can sing better than Dylan anyway. And suzy is stardom bound. Plus i have a my own tambourine. We could call ourselves, “The Multitudes”.

Mitch: It has always struck me as remarkable that this situation has continued to exist throughout my lifetime. The willingness of so many Jew-hating idiots on the left to view Israel as an aggressor, given the history, is just proof of the depth with which Jew-hating is embedded in the “Christian” west.

Mitch, you and Eric and all our local Zionist yahoos, are moral cretins, all of you blind to fascism when it’s done by Jews. Wake up, You’re the idiot promoter of Zionist racist assholes stealing Palestinian land and genociding its people. The Christians in the Holy Land are the only ones acting with moral sense and they are attacked by your gang of fascist Jewish nazis as well as the Muhammadan nazis. You dare to throw out that passe smear of Christianity when your, our people are the ones behaving like mad dog rabid animals unable to stop killing even when the victims are clearly innocent people. You and Eric are dangers to Humboldt County activism as you lack both intelligence and morality when it comes to sharing information with the community. Please stop promoting religious fascism along with Eric by supporting the censorship of anti-Zionist posts and by promoting Zionist killer ape ideology.

Folks, we have a real situation in America where a real 5th Column exists serving a foreign fascist nation at America’s financial and moral expense. Please recognize Zionists in our midst who are representing Israel’s interests so that Israel can get away with literal murder of Palestinians in the way of their hideous racist goal of removing all Gentile Palestinians from Palestine to remake it Jewish, i.e. Yiddish Khazarian Kingdom planted in the Middle East and Americans are paying for it’s establishment and its Zionist killer apes at the helm of Israeli government.

I just dont like the war machine and nation states abuse of poor people. I also don’t care for religion and its role in the conflict. As far as what our DNA is – we are all the same in the end, so at some point we should accept each other as humans. I believe we all want less harm and tragedy for all involved in this conflict. Thanks.

-Bolithio, get real. The concept “Atheism Peace” is nothing but idealistic baloney. There has always been war (or rumors of war). Atheism can’t change that any more than religion can. But God is alive. That is the truth. Atheism is a defeating spirit.

So Mitch, would you consider yourself a PEP? I don’t think most PEPs support Likud actually. They support the Labor Party, which isn’t really all that dovish anyway.

Do you feel dovish most of the time but suddenly hawkish when it comes to Israel? Are you critical of the Democrats for being too centrist but supportive of Likud? Do your liberal ideas apply to every issue except for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

If you answered yes to the questions above, you may be a PEP (Progressive Except on Palestine).

But you are not alone! PEPism is extremely common, especially among liberal Jews. In fact, if you are a liberal Jew, there is a high probability that this syndrome runs in your family. If you aren’t a PEP, you likely have some relatives who are. Though not genetic, PEPism is sometimes, though not always, passed down from one generation to the next. Two PEPs will frequently, but not necessarily, have PEP offspring, some of whom will outgrow the condition. Conversely, occcasionally, the offspring of two PEPs will experience an adverse reaction, manifesting in hyper-keffiyeh use and fetishization of all things Arab.

The onset of PEPism varies. Children of PEPs tend to manifest symptoms as pre-teens. People who do not come from PEP parentage might experience a later onset, especially following a Birth Right trip or, in later years, after a move to Florida.

I am not a PEP and come from a PEP-free family. I have, however, seen how PEPism can affect people’s judgement, end relationships, and make social media extremely unbearable. So, I am speaking out.

And I’m not the only one. The term PEP appears in alternative media. But it hasn’t penetrated traditional media, for the most part. Though I don’t know who came up with the term, and I can’t remember where I first heard it, I unknowingly helped raise awareness about the syndrome via The Washington Post. In a review of Laughing Liberally, a political comedy show which I co-founded and in which I perform, journalist Emily Wax-Thibodeaux wrote,

With her heavy Upper West Side accent and frequent references to Zabar’s, comedian Katie Halper often stuns the audience by giving voice to the Palestinian plight — as a Jewish liberal….

…. Some in the audience laugh. But some clearly experience what Halper, a Laughing Liberally co-founder, calls the “PEP Phenomenon,” or Progressive Except on Palestine.

Because I’m so humble (and/ or was kvelling over seeing my name and my show in print), I didn’t realize the significance of the appearance of PEP in the newspaper, until Adam Weiss wrote a blog post at MondoWeiss called “‘PEP’ (Progressive Except Palestine) makes the Washington Post.”

Do you think you or someone you know might be a PEP? Tomorrow, I’ll have a diagnostic test for people to take. Remember, getting tested is the first step.

Shmuel and Simon were arguing. They decided to present their conflict to the rabbi. The rabbi listened to Shmuel, and said “you’re right.” Then the rabbi listened to Simon and said “you’re right.” Harry, who’d been listening from the beginning, cried out in exasperation, “they can’t both be right!”

The rabbi responded, “you’re right.”

That last line makes it funny, I suppose, but I think the correct answer to Harry is “sure they can.”

Thank you for that tear-jerking video EK! I choose love. I hope there were jewish dead in that list too

Mitch!

I think this “who set them up in such a predictable way that one might almost suspect it was intentional. Remind you of anything happening here in the U.S. of A.?” is wrong. I don’t think at that time the victors cared enough. I think the western world wanted to try to make things right, and in the end I don’t think it was hatred as much as indifference to both Jews and Arabs. (Then I disagreed with your takes on zoos and museums, but that is for another day)

In the end, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is about land use policy too. And in this conflict it’s also about power, leverage and the narrative that will guide the future.

Here are some other quotes I don’t think are fair a) “how long do you think Israel will last once the first Arab state gets a single nuclear warhead?” or this b) “The Arab countries were always allied with the Soviet Union and, before that, the Axis.”

a) I don’t know if that is fair. Pakistan and India hate each other with similar fervor and both have nuclear warheads. Hamas – Hezbollah – No absolutely not. I’d favor military action to prevent it. Morocco, Tunisia, even Egypt… well I guess we’d have to start having a deeper conversation if you think the answer is no.

b) Tunisia for one (my Father and brothers and new nephew! are Tunisian) I don’t think fits this generalization. I think a small portion of Syria allies strongly with Russian, probably much of the rest that are either dead or living in other regions wouldn’t. (That’s just Syria as an example, not meant as a broader generalization of other Arab states)

The Middle East isn’t that simple where broad generalizations work well. I hope you are similarly wrong about the jew-hating left.

Honest question, are you familiar with and do you think Mondowiess is fair? I give them credence because they come from a jewish progressive perspective. But that was before I had the misfortune of reading Stephan’s garbage.

Thanks for sharing Stephen’s effusions with us. It’s salutary to be reminded of the mentality that confronts Jews worldwide, and it’s important to remember that World War II did not extinguish this particular type of irrational hatred. “Killer apes”? The first step towards barbarism is dehumanizing one’s enemies. “Genociding” the Palestinians? This is truly irrational: the birthrate of the Palestinians is among the highest in the world. But facts won’t stop the neo-Nazis in our midst — Israel can remove all its settlers from Gaza and some will continue to use the word “occupation.”

Some folks commenting here seem to view Israeli as completely (or nearly completely) blameless in this conflict, just an innocent victim of one-sided Palestinian aggression. But none of these folks have really addressed the way Israel’s continued land seizures, settlement building, occupation, repression and fragmentation of Palestinian communities in the West Bank, has added fuel to the fire.

Ironically, unlike Hamas, which controls Gaza, the Palestinian Authority, which (kinda-sorta) controls the West Bank, has officially recognized Israel’s right to exist, and top leaders of the PA (specifically Yassar Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas), have actively engaged in negotiations with Israel, aimed at reaching a lasting resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. While the PA and its leaders have been far, far from perfect, there is no doubt that they have been a way more moderate and more constructive force than their rivals, Hamas.

And how have these more-moderate Palestinians been rewarded for their cooperation? Israel pulled out of Hamas-controlled Gaza and even dismantled settlements there — but in the PA-controlled West Bank, Israel has continued to seize land, build settlements, and fragment the Palestinian lands with grotesque apartheid walls, segregated roads and so on. All of which has played a huge role in weakening the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority in the eyes of many Palestinians, and strengthening the hand of the extremists in Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

So while the extreme anti-Israel militants in Hamas and Islamic Jihad share a huge portion of the blame for continuing this conflict, Israel’s actions are a big part of what has pushed more Palestinians into the arms of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. In that sense, the most serious threat to Israel’s security has been its own leadership, its own policies.

Of course exactly the same dynamic is at work in Israeli politics, where the actions of Hamas and Islamic Jihad militants have pushed more and more Israelis into the arms of Netanyahu and the rest of the Israeli right wing.

It’s a very powerful dynamic, and one that is very hard to disengage from (just look how long it took for Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants to move beyond endless repetitive cycles of revenge and reprisal). It’s a bit like one of those chinese finger-traps — the natural reaction is to pull away harder, but harder you pull away, the tighter the trap grips you.

A couple of times within my lifetime Israeli and Palestinian leaders had seemed to be coming close to reaching a meaningful, lasting agreement that could have facilitated de-escalation, and, eventually peaceful coexistence. But each time the two sides appeared to be making progress together, extremists on one side or the other (or, usually, both) have successfully sabotaged peace efforts, by attacking the other side to provoke a reaction, and/or by attacking/undermining/rejecting the leaders on their own side who have dared to compromise, or at least show a willingness to consider compromise.

In one of the most dramatic and heart-breaking examples of the latter, soon after Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Perez and Palestinian Authority President Yassar Arafat had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their participation in the Oslo Accords (which is probably the closest the two parties had ever come to resolving the conflict), Rabin was promptly assassinated by an Israeli ultranationalist, Yigal Amir.

My hope at the time was that this assassination would discredit, once and for all, the Israeli far-right, but unfortunately what has actually happened is that the Israeli right has only become more and more powerful since then. In that sense, Yigal Amir’s act of terrorism has succeeded.

A lasting peace will only come when a critical mass of people on both sides find a way to stop allowing the extremists on both sides to, in essence, exercise veto power over the peace process. A day will have to come where the more moderate forces on both sides are once again making at least some progress toward a resolution, and the extremists on one side or the other (or both) once again try to disrupt that progress with acts of violence, but both sides among the moderates pledge to not allow those acts to dissuade them from pushing ahead with a peace accord, but will instead prompt them to redouble their efforts and press on, refusing to overreact to the actions of the would-be disruptors. Until then, the peace process will continue to be at the mercy of most hard-line, most militant, most violence-embracing forces on each side.

As to whether and when such a turning point might be reached, I’m a pessimist in that I have a hard time imagining it happening any time soon, but an optimist in that I believe it will happen eventually. How many more times will the cycle of revenge and reprisal be repeated before enough people on both sides will break free from the clutches of this brutal spiral? I don’t know. The Irish example offers both hope and despair. Hope, because it’s an example of how what once had seemed like a hopelessly intractable, very bitter, extremely violent ethnic/religious conflict has finally been quelled. Despair because how long that conflict persisted is a reminder that what seems like it ought to be an unsustainable status quo, can in fact be sustained almost indefinitely, given the right (wrong) conditions. And a lot of those right (wrong) conditions are present in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Eirc, comparing an individual op-ed pundit commenter blogger to an elected political party that has repeated electoral success is ridiculous. And even more nonsensical Eric is that if you postulate Hamas are evil crazy extremist terrorists how can you simultaneously believe they will not act in that manner?

The reason the Palestinians were ‘selected’ to atone for European sins is their sins were greater. Firstly they didn’t take up arms against the Ottoman or Axis. Secondly they opportunistically looted the battlefield casualties of those who did. They had few advocates. Therefore, instead of being seated at the negotiation table, they were on the menu. And for the more cynical, handing the “Jewish Problem” to them cleverly killed two birds with one stone.

No, too serious because you think idealistic ideas are formed to dominate people (to me, idealism represents ideas, hopes and dreams – they could be BS, but it doesn’t matter to me, because having ideas is what fuels creativity and fun in this world).

Its OK that you think what you think! And its OK that your answers dont fit my ideals. Peace!

Fascinating also to watch aid to Israel go down to provincial tea party politics. Do you think tea partiers are susceptible to AIPAC opposition? I wonder if it’ll even materialize. The election is just a few months away.

-yep, that is exactly what their real function is. Consciously the duped idealist fools himself that he’s doing good. He may even tell himself he’s going to save the world, but underneath lies an unconscious savage desire to dominate. Born out to fearful thinking, “They are idiots, i know best”.

to me, idealism represents ideas, hopes and dreams – they could be BS, but it doesn’t matter to me, because having ideas is what fuels creativity and fun in this world).

-like America’s optimistic ideas and hopeful dreams? Those ideals didn’t dominate the indians, or anything like that, did they? And it doesn’t matter if the ideals are bullshit (ie that they were the cause of genocide) because, hey, look what they got us. They fueled going to the moon! And created Disneyland and freeways. One example of many throughout history of the brutality and violence brought forth out of idealism..

Here are a few excerpts from a very interesting interview with Israeli writer Amos Oz.

Amoz Oz: I would like to begin the interview in a very unusual way: by presenting one or two questions to your readers and listeners…

Question 1: What would you do if your neighbor across the street sits down on the balcony, puts his little boy on his lap and starts shooting machine gun fire into your nursery?

Question 2: What would you do if your neighbor across the street digs a tunnel from his nursery to your nursery in order to blow up your home or in order to kidnap your family?

With these two questions I pass the interview to you.

…

Deutche Welle: “So what is your suggestion?

My suggestion is to approach Abu Mazen [Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas – the ed.] and to accept the terms – which the whole world knows – for a two-state-solution and coexistence between Israel and the West Bank: Two capitals in Jerusalem, a mutually agreed territorial modification, removal of most of the Jewish settlements from the West Bank.

When Ramallah and Nablus on the West Bank live on in prosperity and freedom, I believe that the people in Gaza will sooner or later do to Hamas what the people of Romania did to Ceausescu. I do not know how long it will take, but it is destined to happen – simply because the people in Gaza will be very jealous of the freedom and prosperity enjoyed by their brothers and sisters on the West Bank in the state of Palestine. This in my view is the solution, although this solution cannot be implemented in 24 hours or 48 hours.

Can you imagine a Palestinian state that is not hostile toward Israel?

Absolutely. I believe the majority of the Palestinians are not in love with Israel, but they do accept with clenched teeth that the Israeli Jews are not going anywhere, just like the majority of Israeli Jews – unhappily and with clenched teeth – accept that the Palestinians are here to stay. This is a basis not for a honeymoon, but perhaps for a fair divorce just like the case of the Czech Republic and Slovakia.”

….

What effect do the constant hostilities have on people?

A very bad effect. It increases the hatred, the bitterness, the suspicion, the mistrust. But this is the case with every war. It is a common sentimentalist assumption to hope that somehow the enemies will start understanding each other and liking each other and eventually they will reconcile and make peace. Throughout history things always work the other way round. Enemies with their hearts full of bitterness and hatred sign a peace contract with clenched teeth and revengeful feelings. Then, in the course of time, eventually there may come a gradual emotional de-escalation.

You wrote 50 years ago that “even an unavoidable occupation is a corrupting occupation.”

I do not always agree with myself, but here I still agree with myself. Occupation is corrupting, even if it is unavoidable. Brutality, chauvinism, narrow-mindedness, xenophobia are the usual syndromes of conflict and occupation. But the Israeli occupation of the West Bank is no longer unavoidable.

I would summarize Oz’s analysis of the situation this way: It does not appear possible to make peace with Hamas, which currently controls Gaza. It does appear possible to make peace with the Palestinian Authority, which currently controls the West Bank. So Israel should make peace with those who are willing to make peace with them, and the fruits of that peace will, over time be judged by all Palestinians (including those in Gaza, eventually) to be far sweeter than the fruits of endless war.

Obviously this is an optimistic view, but at the same time I think it’s one of the more realistic scenarios for de-escalation and eventual rapprochement. Of course Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the like, will not go quietly. Any peace agreement with Palestinians in the West Bank will be put to the test when the inevitable rocket attack on Israel, or kidnapping, or other provocation occurs, probably within days (if not hours) of the agreement being signed. And there will almost certainly be a similar backlash on the Israeli side, with militant “settlers” refusing to leave their illegal settlements and outposts, etc.

The only way such a peace agreement can stand is if the parties resolve to not let the extremists sabotage the process, and stick to their agreement despite the inevitable provocations. It will require a great deal of patience and forbearance on both sides, and, perhaps hardest of all, mutual trust. Which, at this point, would involve a pretty big leap of faith on both sides, since both sides have plenty of legitimate reasons to regard one another with suspicion. But as Oz points out, that’s always the case when making peace.

I just read a Guardian report on the Israeli shelling near a UN school, which has resulted in still more deaths of innocent civilians.

Here is paragraph 33 of the article:

“The UN has said it has found caches of rockets at schools in Gaza and has criticised those who had put them there for placing civilians at risk.”

Paragraph 33.

That means there were were 32 things that Jason Burke, who is paid to objectively inform the world about what he sees, thought were more relevant to an attack just outside a UN school than the fact that they have been used as rocket caches by the people Israel is fighting.

And I have no doubt that my protest to the Guardian’s reader’s editor will be politely acknowledged, justified, and ignored. This is why I say the propaganda is too great.

“What would you do if your neighbor across the street sits down on the balcony, puts his little boy on his lap and starts shooting machine gun fire into your nursery?”

I would re-think my position.

I would consider if occupying their apartment with my army, restricting access, supplies and keeping it more or less wrapped in barbed wire was truly being effective to bring security to my side of the street. Has keeping a them in a militarized state for over 8 years create a desperate situation for the people there? I would consider moving out of the portions of the house across the street that I forced the guy on the balcony out of. And does the fact that there is a group within the population who are religious fanatics who will die for their perceived freedom mean I should try something else?

Or do I stick my head in the sand and keep believing that I have no part in this, and that’s its all their fault? I do have that luxury, since I revive billions in military aid from friends.

Here are some more questions, because once you can admit your real answers,you may have a better understanding of Israel’s position.

“What would you do if your neighbor across the street, whose older kid you murdered yesterday, sits down on the balcony, puts his younger boy on his lap and starts shooting machine gun fire into your nursery?”

“What would you do if your neighbor across the street, Mother Theresa, sits down on the balcony, puts her little boy on his lap and starts shooting machine gun fire into your nursery?”

“What would you do if your neighbor across the street sits down on the balcony, puts his little boy on his lap and starts shooting machine gun fire into your nursery, and you had a gun and a hotline to the police, who would respond by nightfall?”

See. Amos Oz is not asking a question about who is correct, and his question is not a question about justice. It’s about what a human being or set of human beings will do right NOW given the existence of a very real threat. Not about how they will plan for tomorrow. Not about what they should have done yesterday.

It’s a real question with only one honest answer. We can talk productively once you can answer it honestly. The left, for the most part, refuses to do so.

For clarification, you are acknowledging the self-evident truth that you would shoot someone who, while holding their own child in their lap, was shooting into your child’s bedroom?

And you acknowledge that you would do this regardless of whether the person had a legitimate grievance?

And you acknowledge that you would do that regardless of whether that person was saintly?

And you acknowledge that you would do that regardless of whether the police would happily come to collect your dead child within the day?

But you do not believe Israel should do so, and are therefore critical of the actions of the Government of Israel, in bombing near schools, when schools and hospitals have been used as rocket caches by Hamas?

So, after you’d shot that first person who was shooting at your child, and shot them through their own child, because they’d been holding their own child in their lap while shooting at you, would you shoot the next person to start shooting at your child? Quick, they’re doing it now. Good work, you got them. Now the 1500th person shooting at your child? Would you shoot them? You’ve killed an awful lot of people, bolithio. Shouldn’t you stop shooting those people? Is your child’s life really worth this constant, awful, inhuman killing of all those nice people shooting at him or her?

Oh, wait, there weren’t 1500 people shooting at you. There were only ten.

But every time you shot at them, you ended up shooting the kid they’d just put on their lap. And every time, they put twice as many kids between you and them and started shooting again. Oh, the humanity. You’d better stop shooting, bolithio. 1500+66! Stop! For the love of god, let your child take a bullet!!!

I’ve bolded parts just for you, bolithio. Maybe if you gave them candy AND flowers.

Part III – Strategies and Methods

Article Eleven: The Strategy of Hamas: Palestine is an Islamic Waqf
The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. No Arab country nor the aggregate of all Arab countries, and no Arab King or President nor all of them in the aggregate, have that right, nor has that right any organization or the aggregate of all organizations, be they Palestinian or Arab, because Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day of Resurrection. Who can presume to speak for all Islamic Generations to the Day of Resurrection? This is the status [of the land] in Islamic Shari’a, and it is similar to all lands conquered by Islam by force, and made thereby Waqf lands upon their conquest, for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. This [norm] has prevailed since the commanders of the Muslim armies completed the conquest of Syria and Iraq, and they asked the Caliph of Muslims, ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, for his view of the conquered land, whether it should be partitioned between the troops or left in the possession of its population, or otherwise. Following discussions and consultations between the Caliph of Islam, ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, and the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, be peace and prayer upon him, they decided that the land should remain in the hands of its owners to benefit from it and from its wealth; but the control of the land and the land itself ought to be endowed as a Waqf [in perpetuity] for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. The ownership of the land by its owners is only one of usufruct, and this Waqf will endure as long as Heaven and earth last. Any demarche in violation of this law of Islam, with regard to Palestine, is baseless and reflects on its perpetrators.

Article Twelve: Hamas in Palestine, Its Views on Homeland and Nationalism
Hamas regards Nationalism (Wataniyya) as part and parcel of the religious faith. Nothing is loftier or deeper in Nationalism than waging Jihad against the enemy and confronting him when he sets foot on the land of the Muslims. And this becomes an individual duty binding on every Muslim man and woman; a woman must go out and fight the enemy even without her husband’s authorization, and a slave without his masters’ permission. This [principle] does not exist under any other regime, and it is a truth not to be questioned. While other nationalisms consist of material, human and territorial considerations, the nationality of Hamas also carries, in addition to all those, the all important divine factors which lend to it its spirit and life; so much so that it connects with the origin of the spirit and the source of life and raises in the skies of the Homeland the Banner of the Lord, thus inexorably connecting earth with Heaven. When Moses came and threw his baton, sorcery and sorcerers became futile.

Article Thirteen: Peaceful Solutions, [Peace] Initiatives and International Conferences[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad: “Allah is the all-powerful, but most people are not aware.” From time to time a clamoring is voiced, to hold an International Conference in search for a solution to the problem. Some accept the idea, others reject it, for one reason or another, demanding the implementation of this or that condition, as a prerequisite for agreeing to convene the Conference or for participating in it. But the Islamic Resistance Movement, which is aware of the [prospective] parties to this conference, and of their past and present positions towards the problems of the Muslims, does not believe that those conferences are capable of responding to demands, or of restoring rights or doing justice to the oppressed. Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the nonbelievers as arbitrators in the lands of Islam. Since when did the Unbelievers do justice to the Believers? “And the Jews will not be pleased with thee, nor will the Christians, till thou follow their creed. Say: Lo! the guidance of Allah [himself] is the Guidance. And if you should follow their desires after the knowledge which has come unto thee, then you would have from Allah no protecting friend nor helper.” Sura 2 (the Cow), verse 120 There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility. The Palestinian people are too noble to have their future, their right and their destiny submitted to a vain game. As the hadith has it: “The people of Syria are Allah’s whip on this land; He takes revenge by their intermediary from whoever he wished among his worshipers. The Hypocrites among them are forbidden from vanquishing the true believers, and they will die in anxiety and sorrow.” (Told by Tabarani, who is traceable in ascending order of traditionaries to Muhammad, and by Ahmed whose chain of transmission is incomplete. But it is bound to be a true hadith, for both story tellers are reliable. Allah knows best.)

Mitch, it appears that you found Amos Oz’s shooter-with-the-child-on-the-lap analogy useful, but I’m disappointed that you seem to have ignored the rest of the interview.

I would be curious to hear your reaction to the rest of his comments, in which he advocates withdrawing from most of the West Bank settlements, thereby attempting to demonstrate that Israel is serious about making peace with those who are serious about making peace with them.

I’m pretty sure Mr. Oz is not an anti-Semite. And he obviously has no sympathy for Hamas’s hiding-behind-civilians tactics, nor does he think Israel should be required to just sit there and accept being attacked without retaliating. But he does seem to acknowledge that Israeli policies that punish all Palestinians for the actions of the worst militants among them is counterproductive to Israel, as this approach only strengthens support for groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

I think Israel should return to its 1948 borders. Period. Have you read the Hamas Charter? How should the world assist Israel in both withdrawing to its UN-legitimized border AND preventing further terrorism, given that Hamas was elected by the people of Gaza.

Mitch, I feel like you are really trying to get me in some sot of blog check-mate. I really like you (as a internet identity) and dont want to ruin that.

Your questions are supper hard to answer because they are framed in a way to get a certain type of response.

I can not possibly relate to what it is like to live in a war zone like this – so its pointless to even try to say what I would do. In all honesty, I would most likely run. Pack up and get to the safest place I could. I dont know if I have it in me to kill anyone.

What about the perspective of a Palestinian vs Israeli? I hold Israel to a higher standard than Palestine because they are a nuclear fucking super power. Are they not the 13th strongest military in the world? The proportion of deaths matters, regardless if Hamas occurs within a greater population of people.

Another problem I have in your question is the concept that a resistance against occupation would have anywhere else they could be. There are no Palestinian military bases. No nuclear silos or air fields. They are fighting from within a jail.

Lastly, let me ask you a question: Dont you think if the gaza occupation was ended, effective sanctions lifted, and the real, actual stop of settlements in Palestinian territory would go along way to preventing violence? Why is this never addressed by Israel supporters?

I have heard nothing from you that touches the 8-year occupation, the settlements, or the non-stop harassment people living in Gaza deal with everyday.

I felt the same way following 9/11, were I could not help but think that our policy of exploiting the third world was what got us here, and killing hundreds of thousands of people would not change that fact. Sadly that is exactly what we did. I spoke out against that then, I speak against bombing Gaza now since I am paying for it.

But no, I don’t think ending the Gaza occupation will go a long way, or any distance whatsoever, towards preventing violence. Did you read the Hamas charter?

Yes, I got extremely pissed off when you lied about Oz’s question (sic, sic, sic). That is what the left does — it ignores the absolute day-to-day reality Israel faces and wonders, as if there is any wonder to be had, how Israel can be so mean. If that means my blog persona has offended you, well, I hope the offense was worth it to you.

I feel no need to checkmate you or anyone else, but the smugness with which the world refuses to acknowledge this no win situation and that it has NO IDEA WHATSOEVER how it could respond differently than the IDF is a source of personal rage when I dwell on it, which I will shortly stop doing, for my own sake.

This problem is not Israel’s fault and it is not the Palestinians fault. The world created this problem and the world owes the Israelis and the Palestinians safety within the borders the world set. And the world has demonstrated its total unwillingness to admit that, or lift a finger to protect the descendants of the people it “gave” someone else’s country to.

Then we agree on what Israel should do. The questions, then, are if, when and how they will do it. If the answer is that in order to avoid appearing weak, Israel must not return to its 1948 borders (or some agreed-upon borders fairly close to the 1948 borders) until every last Hamas and Islamic Jihad and other hard-line anti-Israel militant has been killed or captured or gives up and is voluntarily disarmed, and not just in the West Bank, but in Gaza too, then it’s never going to happen. Because there’s always going to be some weapons stashed somewhere, some group of zealots determined to derail the agreement with a rocket attack or kidnapping, designed mainly to draw retaliation from the other side and thus re-ignite hostilities. The key is to make peace with the majority, where the majority is willing to make peace, and then hold fast and make that peace stick in spite of the efforts of its most extreme and most violent opponents.

“Have you read the Hamas Charter?”

Not the whole thing, but yes, I’ve read the part you’ve posted. And I agree that the language and worldview expressed therein are inherently incompatible with peaceful coexistence. But keep in mind that there have been plenty of other guerrilla movements / rebels / terrorists / freedom fighters (depending on your perspective) that have had similarly hard-line manifestos calling for the complete defeat, elimination or removal of whatever their perceived absolute enemies were — Communists or Imperialists or Protestants or Catholics or whatever — that are now little more than historical footnotes.

In some cases the same leaders who wrote the absolutist manifestos have eventually come to accept compromise, in other cases those leaders and groups who would not get on board with peace efforts held tight to their absolutist demands, but lost support and were swept aside by a majority no longer willing to forfeit the chance for a normal life for the sake of ideological/religious/political purity. My hope is that if Hamas cannot or will not modify its position, eventually Hamas will find itself in a similar position to the “Real IRA” in Northern Ireland — a mostly irrelevant, discredited splinter group, commanding less and less support from the general populace with every passing year.

Israel cannot force Palestinians to turn away from Hamas and Islamic Jihad style extremism, but by ending the occupation and withdrawing from (most, if not all) settlements in the West Bank it can create conditions where that turning away is more likely. Israel’s current policy of continued occupation, settlement building, blockades, apartheid roads and all the rest are doing just the opposite, and have been for some time.

I suspect Amos Oz has it about right when he says:

“I believe the majority of the Palestinians are not in love with Israel, but they do accept with clenched teeth that the Israeli Jews are not going anywhere, just like the majority of Israeli Jews – unhappily and with clenched teeth – accept that the Palestinians are here to stay. ”

As long as Israel continues to occupy the West Bank, continues to take Palestinian land and turn it over to right-wing settlers, continues to blockade and impoverish Gaza — in other words as long as Israel continues to dole out collective punishment to Palestinians — Hamas and Islamic Jihad are able to point to those injustices and use them to appeal to a fairly wide group of Palestinians. Removing those injustices will not cause Hamas and Islamic Jihad to change their hard-line rhetoric and actions, but it may go a long way toward convincing more everyday Palestinians to turn away from the hard-liners.

The difference between Hamas and other terrorist groups is that Hamas has been elected as a representative party by the Gazan Palestinians. So it’s not that the Palestinians are trying to get rid of Hamas — they agree with Hamas.

Presumably, Israel has been trying to inflict enough pain to separate the Palestinians from their chosen representative by convincing them that they will suffer severe harm as long as they stick with that representative.

Meanwhile, as always the influence is not with Israel and not with the Palestinians. It is with the Islamic oil states that fund and arm the Palestinians, and the United States, which funds and arms Israel. And it doesn’t appear that either the United States or the Islamic oil states are bothered enough by the situation to do anything about it except maintain a fairly awful status quo.

Meanwhile, the United Nations does its professional tut-tutting, while allowing arms in their Gaza facilities, and while looking away while tunnels are dug into a member state’s territory in order to kidnap and murder citizens of the member state.

The Palestinian/Israeli conflict would end in roughly ten seconds if there was a credible threat that the Arab and Islamic oil states would be excluded from the world banking system and world trade if any one of them continued to arm the terrorist operations. This is ironic, given the anti-semitic left’s conviction that the Jews secretly run the world. As always, the issue is money and the villains are the world’s wealthiest people, who don’t seem to care that they’ve created an assembly line carnage system, diminishing both the Palestinians and the Israelis.

On Mitch’s point, it is interesting that Qatar can provide so much financial assistance, but we don’t see AIPAC lobbying the President to put sanctions on Qatar. It won’t happen, and AIPAC knows better than to push the issue. Money trumps everything.

On the other hand, the Obama administration won’t issue any statement even mildly critical of Israel. Everything is Hamas’s fault, even though they’re privately fuming since Kerry was humiliated last week.

Hamas won one legislative election, back in, I believe, 2006. Just a year earlier, Mahmoud Abbas of the Fatah party was elected President of the Palestinian Authority, so clearly a pretty large number of Palestinians does not “agree” with Hamas. There were supposed to be new elections for both Parliament and President in 2010, but due to armed struggle between Fatah and Hamas, in which Fatah managed to hold onto control of the West Bank while Hamas took control of Gaza, those elections were never held. Meanwhile, although originally seen by many Gazans as an alternative to corrupt and ineffective Fatah leadership, by many accounts Hamas has been losing popular support in Gaza in recent years.

I have no way of knowing for sure, of course, how popular Hamas is or isn’t in Gaza at the moment, nor whether a majority of Gazans would rather be rid of Hamas. From what I have read, though, Hamas’ popularity has generally waned whenever relative quiet prevailed — since in the absence of violent struggle, Hamas’ utter failure to improve living conditions for Gazans was more salient, whereas in the presence of violent struggle, they were seen as the only force resisting Israel.

Lucky for Hamas, they know that by kidnapping and/or killing some Israelis or lobbing some (highly ineffective) rockets at Israel, they can easily provoke Israel into periodic massive bombardments and occasional invasions, with hundreds or even thousands of civilian casualties, and then leverage the rally-round-the-flag effect to increase their hold on power.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu, who has made clear he has no intention to ever agree to give up control of the West Bank* is only too happy to oblige, as these endless intermittent clashes only strengthen his support from his right-wing base, undercut Israeli peaceniks, and give him his own rally-round-the-flag effect among the population at large — while also provide a ready excuse for not pursuing the two-state solution peace plan that pretty much everyone other than the Israeli right wing and the U.S. right wing agrees has the best chance of success for creating lasting security for both parties.

At this point the right-wing leadership of Israel and the militant leadership of Hamas are basically mutually dependent — the more they clash, the more beneficial it is for both of them politically. So I don’t believe for a minute that Netanyahu believes bombarding or invading Gaza will weaken Hamas. It never has before, and Netanyahu is not stupid. He doesn’t want Hamas weakened, he wants, just as Hamas does, to continue to sabotage any prospects for a two-state solution. If he didn’t want to sabotage the prospects for peace, he would have, at the very least, stopped expanding Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. Instead, he’s increased the amount of settlement, dramatically:

It’s no accident that this year’s extra-aggressive bombardment and invasion of Gaza comes just as a new Palestinian election was supposed to take place. Neither Netanyahu, nor Hamas leaders, wants that to happen. And both have played their roles to ensure that either it won’t take place, or if it does, it will take place in the context of a newly-strengthened Hamas. Hamas needs to attack and be attacked by Israel to maintain it’s grip on Gaza. Netanyahu needs to keep Palestinians divided and Israelis afraid, in order to keep his grip on the West Bank.

* Netanyahu: “I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan.” In other words, there are now no circumstances under which Netanyahu would accept the Palestinians establishing sovereign control over the West Bank.

When Jimmy Carter warned that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank was starting to look an awful lot like apartheid, he caught a lot of flack for it. Unfortunately the old peanut farmer appears to have been right on the money:

The basic problem that the right-wing Israelis have is that they want Israel to continue to expand the Israeli settlements in Palestinian areas, but they also want to be a Jewish-majority state. The tortuous route of the “separation wall” (aka “apartheid wall”) represents one attempt to thread that needle. A border drawn along that wall would amount to a significant annexation of additional Palestinian lands to Israel, but would include enough existing Israeli settlement areas and exclude enough nearby Palestinian settlements to allow the population on the Israeli side of the wall to remain majority-Jewish. Because of the large number of Israeli “settlements” in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, including some that are located many miles from the rest of Israel, this involves some truly convoluted ethnic gerrymandering, as seen in the map linked to at 10:21.

As if Hamas is the only entity with crazy rhetoric. Israel elects people to parliament who are just as militant, like Ayelet Shaked:

“Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there.”

So the whole “as long as there is Hamas” logic is BS. As long as you have fundamentalist religious fanatics, there will be hate between Jews and Muslims. That is true, but the extremists are a minority on the fringe of both populations. So Again why wont Israel do what everyone on earth knows they should?

—

Why cant Israel roll in with troops and only attack and kill combatants? Why do they need to destroy whole neighborhoods of houses? Schools and hospitals? I mean 1000 civilian deaths? That is not Hamas’s fault. Either Israel has really shitty intelligence on Hamas, or they just dont care about the people “in the way”.

I hold Israel to a higher standard for several reasons. First they are a fucking nuclear supper power. The assertion that Palestine gets as much foreign aid as Israel is absurd. Where are Palestines’ F-16s and modern tanks and weapons? Seems like all they have is bottle rockets.

And where else would a resistance to occupation occur other than within the occupied territory? There are no military bases, no air fields, no military locations. It is Israel that has them locked in, not the other way around. So this constant drum beat that they are hiding behind civilians is disingenuous.

This third attack in 8 years shows no real strategic value for Israels security. It will only incite more hate among Palestinians who have lost their lives, family and homes. And consider that all living children in Palestine that are 9 years old have spent their entire lives in occupation and witnessed three extremely bloody attacks from Israel. What toll has this had on their childhoods and development?

This is not the left ignoring Israels poor plight. This is people against war speaking about against Israels racist collective punishment of a third world people. Is human rights watch and amnesty international secretly anti-jew? Every time a Israel supporter accuses someone of that, we see the powerful propaganda mechanism that the right-wing of Israel has crafted. Speaking out = Antisemitism. Just like speaking about against Bush was anti-American during the post 911 days. Total bullshit.

“Racist collective punishment of a Third World people” — the people being “punished” in Gaza are of the same race as the Israeli Arabs who sit in the Knesset (parliament) of Israel — and of the man who heads Israel’s highest court. “Collective punishment”? From my vantage point, I see Hamas collectively punishing its own people by putting them in harm’s way — by hiding its rockets among schools, mosques, and hospitals. “Suicide by Israel,” one might call it (by analogy with “suicide by cop,” when a self-destructive person forces another party — a cop — to shoot at him, by engaging in unacceptably menacing behavior). —- This is what I read on a different blog today: If Hamas had its way, Gaza would look a lot like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. If Israel had its way, Gaza would look a lot like Santa Monica. — I can’t disagree with that.

“If Hamas had its way, Gaza would look a lot like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. If Israel had its way, Gaza would look a lot like Santa Monica. — I can’t disagree with that.”

I wouldn’t disagree either, when framed that way — as Hamas (a faction with, at best, plurality support among Palestinians) vs. Israel (the country as a whole). But Hamas is not the same as all Palestinians, and I don’t believe that most Palestinians want to live in an ISIS-style theocracy, or that most Palestinians are hell-bent on destroying Israel.

Israelis, meanwhile, are not exactly of one mind either. Some support a two-state solution, at least in principle. Some would support returning settlements in the West Bank to a Palestinian state as part of a comprehensive peace agreement. But many others will never agree to that, including Netanyahu and even farther-right members of his governing coalition. They have a different plan for the occupied territories — continuing occupation, coupled with creeping annexation. And as long as that’s the situation, where Palestinians continue to be pushed around and marginalized, continue have their land stolen, continue to be denied real representation and self-determination — in other words, as long as Palestinians in the occupied territories continue to be treated like second-class human beings — Israel will have neither peace nor quiet, no matter how many militants they kill, and how many innocent civilians they’re willing to kill in the process. .

I suppose one issue we have to resolve in any discussion, “Is there an occupation of the Gaza?” It came up on my radio show, when Andy and a caller got into it on the question, and probably we need to ask is, “Does an economic blockade constitute ‘occupation’ and if so does this mean that we are occupying North Korea and Iran? If not, to what threshold of a blockade do we need to reach before it constitutes “occupation?”

Mitch, Thanks for the Sam Harris piece. He makes some good points, but think he really misses the boat when he says this:

“Some might argue that they [Israel] would do more than this [live in peace with their neighbors] —e.g. steal more Palestinian land. But apart from the influence of Jewish extremism (which I condemn), Israel’s continued appropriation of land has more than a little to do with her security concerns. Absent Palestinian terrorism and Muslim anti-Semitism, we could be talking about a “one-state solution,” and the settlements would be moot.”

First of all, taking over your neighbor’s land and moving in hundreds of thousands of “settlers” at the point of a gun is not a great way to reduce “security concerns.” Second, as long as the majority of Israelis want it to remain a “Jewish state,” and also wants Israel to remain a democracy (and unless I’m mistaken those are two things Israel is committed to, the former regrettably but understandably, as Harris argues, the latter to their credit) they cannot simply annex all of Palestine, because the majority is not Jewish and thus the resulting state would not be a majority-Jewish democracy, unless Palestinians were denied the vote. It seems to me that the game being played by Netanyahu and his allies is to simply avoid any real peace negotiations because the more time passes, the more settlements are built and populated and become “facts on the ground.” Hamas is of great assistance in this project, as their periodic rocket fire and other assorted acts of terrorism emanating from Gaza provide an excellent distraction from fundamental issues of occupation and annexation, and a capital excuse to continue the status quo of no progress towards a Palestinian state.

The West Bank is being occupied (and large parts of it de-facto annexed), and Gaza is being blockaded — but in a much more real way than the economic sanctions against North Korea and Iran. Does the Gaza blockade amount to occupation? Seems like a question of semantics. Whatever you want to call it, it’s a human rights disaster of staggering proportions. As is the occupation in the West Bank.

I’m willing to believe that Israel, even under Netanyahu would eventually end the blockade of Gaza if militants in Gaza completely stopped lobbing rockets at Israel or attacking in other ways, and enough time passed where there was, as the Israeli leadership often puts it, “quiet in Israel.” Unfortunately I don’t see it as likely that such attacks will ever completely stop long enough to meet that threshold as long as the blockade of Gaza and the occupation/annexation of the West Bank continue. Somebody’s got to make the first move toward changing the status quo, and I very much doubt it will be Hamas or other hard-line militants. So for anything to change, either Palestinians in Gaza are going to have to (somehow) give Hamas the boot, or Israelis are going to have to give Netanyahu and his right-wing allies the boot, or preferably both.

By the way, when you move hundreds of thousands of your own civilians onto your neighbors land, which your military has seized and occupied, does that not amount to putting your own civilians “in harm’s way,” and making them a target — a “human shield,” if you will, for the occupation? Cuz it sure seems that way to me.

“A human rights disaster of staggering proportions” — referring to the occupation of the West Bank (and to the blockade of Gaza, a very different issue). Why are there no (to my knowledge) refugees from this “staggering” denial of rights? Right across the border from Israel lies Jordan — a majority-Palestinian country? Why don’t Palestinians flee to its warm embrace? Does Jordan qualify as a Palestinian state? No? — why not? — Last week , I read the words of a Canadian professor (whose name eludes me), who wrote: The two most misunderstood issues in the world are GMOs and Israel-Palestine. I agree with him, and Eric’s blog bolsters my belief. Such ignorance masking as outrage; such suspicion of the clear “good guys” (GMOs and Israel; read some science or read some history if you disagree, and I’m sorry if this sounds condescending, but I’ve been arguing these matters for a decade now, and I’m tired of it.)

Somebody’s got to make the first move toward changing the status quo, and I very much doubt it will be Hamas or other hard-line militants.

One can argue that they made that first step in 2005 when Israel pulled out and turned it over to the Palestinian Authority. Instead of using the opportunity to build the place into a money-making beach resort, they started purchasing rockets and cement strictly used for military offensive tunnels.

I’ve advocated that the Israelis pull back to the 1967 borders in the West Bank, but with Gaza they’ve already done that.

So I don’t disagree with you. Israel has more power to change the history. But I guess the question is, “How many ‘first steps’ must they take before Hamas even takes one?”

I wouldn’t count on Hamas for anything other than more of the same any time in the near future. But again, Hamas ≠ all Palestinians, or even a majority. And certainly not a majority in the West Bank. I think Amos Oz is right that Israel ought to be making a real effort to make peace with those who have shown a willingness to make peace with them, namely the majority in the West Bank.

“We must continue to occupy the territory whose leadership is not lobbing rockets at us and has acknowledged our right to exist and renounced violence and shown a willingness to negotiate in good faith, because the blockaded territory whose leadership does not acknowledge our right to exist and has not renounced violence and has not shown a willingness to negotiate in good faith is lobbing rockets at us” just doesn’t make a lot of sense if the goal is to make peace. If the goal is to stall any peace process while using the situation in Gaza as an excuse to continue to seize territory in the West Bank for additional “settlements,” and eventually annex more and more of that territory, then the policy starts to make a lot more sense.

Sorry, Erasmus, but there are no “clear good guys” in the current leadership of either Israel or the Palestinians. Israel has been actively stealing Palestinian land, and continues to steal Palestinian land today. In fat they have increased the rate of new “settlement” building sharply in the last several years. If you don’t think millions of people being forced from their land, having their land occupied, fragmented and/or blockaded, enough of a human-rights disaster for you to consider it “staggering,” well I guess that shows either how little you know, or how little you care.

And just because Palestinians choose to stay and endure the abuse of their human rights, rather than giving up and fleeing to another country doesn’t mean their human rights aren’t being abused. Your argument seems to boil down to “if the Israelis are making life so hard on Palestinians, the Palestinians should just leave.” That’s like saying if you don’t like your neighbor moving into your house without your permission, you should just quit your bellyaching and move in with your cousin next door. I’m sure there are plenty in the Israeli right wing for whom that would be their fondest wish. But since that’s not going to happen, they appear to be content to keep the Gaza isolated, impoverished, and desperate, with the radicalism that breeds a useful foil in their effort to maintain the status quo of avoiding any peace deal that would entail stopping the ongoing land theft, or even (gasp) giving back at least some of the stolen land.

A Jew who decides to live on so-called Palestinians land should not have the right to do so? Why? Over a million Arabs are Israeli citizens, with more political and religious rights than they would have in any Arab country. (Maybe that’s why they don’t emigrate!). The so-called “occupied territories” are really more of a no-man’s-land these days. There never was a country called Palestine that could recover what it never owned. (In fact, a Palestinian state was rejected in 1947, and from 1948 to 1967, when no Israeli set foot on the land, a state could have been created with a stroke of a pen.) Since over a million Arabs are now living in Israel, why should a Jew be denied the right to settle in what may become a Palestinian state? It sounds like pre-emptive ethnic cleansing to deny him the right to live there. — Jordan is much larger than Israel. It is majority-Palestinian. How often is this mentioned by our media? What conclusions should we draw both from the facts and from the silence of the media? (A) The plight of the Palestinians would be traded for by Tibetans, and the Kurds — until recently — would have given their eye teeth for such a “plight.” (B) The media rarely provide historical context to the stories they print. They deal in sensationalism (dead children! rockets’ red glare!), not in sober, complex analysis.

The only practical peace plan for Palestine was crafted in 1939(Wiki reference below) by authorities on the ground there who had the best understanding of what was happening and the resident’s undeniable aspirations.

That plan wasn’t implemented due to WWII and the holocaust that greatly enlarged the number of Jewish political refugees. But today, the fundamental demographics are similar to pre-1939 due to ‘natural growth’ among Palestinian Arabs.

While modern Israel is a secular country, it also has an established religion, just as Britain and others do. The established Jewish theology is Orthodox which encompasses a Messianic prophesy that requires its followers to promote through political action. That’s also where there’s confluence with evangelical Christianity theology., partially explaining the US support for Israeli regional dominance.

Over time and after much warring, the 1939 plan will come about Whether that will aggrandize the US is unclear. But one thing is certain. If the US(and world) doesn’t critically depend on oil from that region, the political arrangements there will have much less importance.

Eric, you obviously have no experiencing associating with pious Orthodox Jews nor devout Muslims. How many of either do you even know of in Humboldt? But opine on in foolish ignorance…

1939 wasn’t very long ago in political terms. US patriots hold the ‘founding fathers’ of a much earlier time as topical. And the Supreme Court routinely decides issues based on the authority of the founding father’s opinions. Not to mention the reverence of Greek political and cultural ideas as the basis of Western civilization. That was over 2000 years ago and remembered like yesterday..

Jonathan Weiler makes an interesting point about the fundamental symmetry of the Hamas and Likud positions:

Since virtually every comment on Hamas in American media includes the assertion that the group’s Charter rejects Israel’s right to exist, it’s worth noting the following from the Likud Platform of 1999:

a. “The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.”

b. “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem.”

c. “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.”

d. “The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.”

There have been some updates to the platform more recently, reflecting Israel’s withdrawal of settlements from Gaza in 2005. But the Likud Party has *never* in its statements of principles, accepted a Palestinian State. Its electoral partner, Yisrael Beitenu, has likewise categorically rejected the possibility of an independent Palestinian State, insisting that the idea is nothing more than a ploy to facilitate the destruction of Israel.

The Hamas charter, of course, does more than just reject Israel as a sovereign political entity. It’s a vile document that echoes some of the worst anti-Semitic tropes of the modern era. But on the central question of one side denying the other’s legitimacy — it’s hard to ignore the symmetry between Likud – the party of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – and Hamas.

According to its own platform, Likud asserts that all land west of the Jordan river is the Land of Israel, and that it is the “unassailable right” of Jewish people to “settle” on that land, and that there shall never be a Palestinian state in the West Bank. So, Likud wants Israel to maintain its control over the occupied territories. But here’s the catch — Unless the Palestinians living there somehow disappeared, Israel cannot incorporate all of this territory into the State of Israel, because that would mean incorporating the millions of Palestinians living there into Israel, which (unless Israel wants to abandon democracy) means they would have to be granted the right to vote like any other Israeli citizen. But with Palestinians and Jews in the combined territory of Israel and Palestine being roughly equal in numbers at the moment (even without including the millions of Palestinian refugees living in Jordan and elsewhere), and the Palestinian population growing faster than the Jewish population, Israeli Jews in a unitary Israel/Palestine state would face the prospect of being outnumbered, and potentially out-voted, by Palestinians within Israel, not an outcome Likud and its even-farther-right-wing allies are willing to countenance.

So Likud and its allies are stuck between the conflicting demands of their own dogma. They will never accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank, but they will also never accept one state covering all of Israel/Palestine, with Palestinians enjoying the right to vote, because then Israeli Jews would be a minority voting bloc within Israel. Unwilling to consider either two states, or one all-inclusive state, Likud must by necessity cling to the status quo of one state, where Israeli Arabs have the right to vote, but are safely a minority, and one stateless territory where Palestinians have no vote on the Israeli decision-makers who actually control their territory.

It’s an inherently unjust status quo, but of course given a sufficient gap between the military strength of the parties, inherently unjust status quos can sometimes be maintained for a long, long time — sometimes in relative peace, or at least “quiet,” but often not. The Israeli government’s stated goal of “quiet restored to Israel” is a delusional fantasy when made in the midst of their ongoing occupation and apartheidization of Palestinian lands. The Palestinians aren’t going to just give up and go away, and they’re not going to sit quietly by while their remaining land is carved up. For Israel to have a chance at real peace and security, Israel must come to terms with the Palestinians. And since neither side is likely to agree to a one-state solution that is also acceptable to the other party, by default a multi-state solution is what we are left with. Either that or the Likud/Hamas approach of mutual rejection and perpetual conflict. Sadly, I wouldn’t bet against the latter any time soon.

Eric, you obviously have no experiencing associating with pious Orthodox Jews nor devout Muslims. How many of either do you even know of in Humboldt? But opine on in foolish ignorance…

In Humboldt none. I attended a primarily Jewish high school, and married into a Jewish family, and I’m well acquainted with the dynamics of Jews all across the spectrum.

I’ve only known a few Muslims, only a couple of them devout in the sense that they believe everyone else is headed to Hell.

1939 is an eternity in political terms and there will be no “one state solution” because these people, this generation, cannot possibly live together under one political system. It’s a pipe dream, and nobody in the region is promoting that idea. The choices are Greater Israel, the total destruction of Israel, or the two-state solution, which has been endorsed in words by both sides whether they really mean it, and is supported in concept by the majorities in both, if you combine the West Bank with the Gaza.

I’m grateful for Erasmus’s comment, because it does a great job of illustrating the extreme right-wing’s delusional version of reality where Palestine never existed, those calling themselves Palestinians have no legitimate claim to any land west of the Jordan River, and if they don’t like living as perpetually stateless subjects of Israeli military occupation, nor accepting a permanent subordinate status in whatever remaining bantustans the Israelis generously offer them once they are done settling as much of the West Bank as is convenient for Israel, then they should just quit complaining and go live in Jordan.

The “Palestinians” (why the quotation marks? because it hasn’t been that long that a “people” calling themselves Palestinians has existed) lived under Egyptian and Jordanian occupation for many years (and, I’ll repeat, no movement towards statehood took place). — I wish a partner for peace would present itself, and I wish the rightward trend in Israeli politics would partially reverse itself. (But being under siege does strange things to a nation’s psyche.) All I know is what I would do if I were a Jew or an Arab: if I were Jewish, I would live in this country and not in Israel (because I don’t care for heavily militarized societies, and we are far less ‘war ready’ than Israel); if I were Arab and living under Israeli occupation, I would probably vote with my feet and choose to join my brethren in a sovereign Arab country. Israel is a tiny country (about 1/4 of 1 percent of the land in the Mideast, if Iran is included). Leave it alone; let it thrive in peace. Let Arabs be ruled by other Arabs and enjoy their monoreligious and racially harmonious lands. As Amos Oz has written, the choice in the Mideast is between a Shakespearean tragedy (in which the stage is strewn with dead bodies at the play’s end) or a Chekhovian tragedy (in which everyone is disillusioned, sullen, but alive).

“The population in the Gaza Strip is mainly composed by families of Palestinian refugees. Many of them were expelled in 1948 from Najd, Al-Jura and Al-Majdal, present-day Or Haner, Sderot and Ashkelon (a city of Canaanite origins, that included, until 1948, al-Majdal). These villages were razed to the ground by the Israel Defense Forces to prevent the return of their inhabitants. The latters were transferred by bus to the camps and the cities that form the present-day Gaza Strip.”

Jul. 23, 2012 Defense Minister Ehud Barak has ordered the demolition of eight Palestinian villages in the South Hebron Hills because the territory is needed for Israel Defense Forces training exercises, the state told the High Court of Justice on Sunday…

…The villages slated for demolition are the larger villages in the region: Majaz, Tabban, Sfai, Fakheit, Halaweh, Mirkez, Jinba, and Kharuba, which have a total of 1,500 residents…

..The IDF and the Civil Administration regard all of them as squatters in Firing Zone 918, even though the villages have existed since at least the 1830s.

Those two choices you offer are both “One State Solutions”. A Jewish minority in an Arab majority State or a Jewish majority in an Arab minority State. The people who can’t abide that State won’t be there, as a result of war.

Eric, you’ve never had any close contact with observant Orthodox Jews, anywhere. The Jews you have know would be considered apostates. That’s just a fact. So any opinion you have about practical implications of Jewish religious dogma and culture is uninformed and worthless.

It takes at least two partners to make a partnership. At this point we don’t really even have one.

The closest we have is Mahmoud Abbas on the Palestinian side, an accommodationist who is unequivocally in favor of a negotiated two-state solution. But Abbas, who was elected back in 2005, lacks a clear mandate given that Hamas won a plurality in legislative elections last time such elections were held (in 2006). New Palestinian elections might (or might not) lead to a clearer result, and these long-overdue elections were supposed to have been held this summer, according to the Hamas-Fatah agreement that was reached in April. But with huge areas of Gaza in ruins, one out of four Gaza residents displaced from their homes, and all kinds of basic life-support infrastructure (water, sewer, power) reduced to rubble by Israeli bombs, elections are not likely to happen any time soon. (And if they did, the outcome would probably not be helpful to President Abbas — the bombardment and invasion of Gaza is widely expected to lead to increased popular support for Hamas, just as earlier rounds of bombardment and invasion have.)

Meanwhile, Netanyahu and his Likud party, together with his even-farther-right-wing coalition partners, are the duly elected representatives of Israel — so there’s no problem with electoral pedigree on that side — but unfortunately they and their parties are adamantly opposed to a sovereign Palestinian state. Which means there is no “partner for peace” on the Israeli side either.

So the prospects for a lasting, effective peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians remain dim as long as rejectionists continue to rule, as they now do in Israel, or, as with Hamas and other militants on the Palestinian side, at least have enough popular support and disruptive potential to undermine the efforts of accommodationists like Abbas.

Unfortunately, since rockets fired into Israel strengthen the Israeli right-wing’s grip on Israeli politics, and bombs dropped on Gaza strengthen Hamas and other militant Palestinian groups, the rejectionists on both sides have found it quite easy to support one another in their joint goal of disrupting any efforts at resolving the conflict through compromise.

Most Israelis would be considered apostates by the nutcase religious fringe behind the settlements, NaN. I have zero sympathy for religious zealots who insist that “God gave Judea and Samaria to the Jews.”

Palestinians are real, and they have as much reason for fury with their Arab “brothers” as they have with Israelis. I don’t know, but I certainly suspect that many Palestinians would be only too happy to settle in Jordan or Egypt if they could become citizens of those states. I think Jordan and Egypt should be required to accept any Palestinian who requests citizenship, and they should be paid $1 million or more per capita by a consortium headed by Germany and the United States, paid from a new tax on oil.

The situation in Gaza is a crime. But to lay the blame for the situation on Gaza primarily on Israeli decisions is just ignorant.

IIWK (if I were King), Jerusalem would have no residents whatsoever. It would be a theme park called “Holy Land.” Equipment at the boundary of Jerusalem would detect and heat any metal until it caused any inflammable substance near the metal to ignite. If you were caught carrying a weapon, I’d be 100% for instant capital punishment.

The West Bank would have only three armed persons, called the West Bank Police. Everyone else would be free to shoot, with very limited risk. The residents would either figure things out amongst themselves or would kill one another off, which would probably be for the best.

I’m not sure what I’d do with Gaza: at the moment, I’m thinking giving it to Donald Trump — on the condition that he remain there at all times — is probably the best approach. If that doesn’t work, I think the British should be forced to take it back. I don’t care what they do with it.

Just as soon as the middle east is peaceful, I’d like to see the United States and Canada forced by the world to return their territory to the rightful owners. When that is taken care of, I think all will be well, and the casinos will be able to host idiots bashing one another to their hearts content.

Erasmus, the Palestinians aren’t just going to go away. Neither are the Israelis. That’s the only realistic starting point for any rational discussion of the situation. If you want to imagine a fantasy world where the Palestinians just up and leave, that’s your prerogative. But it’s just that, a fantasy that has no bearing on the real situation.

Eric, you’ve never had any close contact with observant Orthodox Jews, anywhere. The Jews you have know would be considered apostates. That’s just a fact. So any opinion you have about practical implications of Jewish religious dogma and culture is uninformed and worthless.

You’re talking about the fringe – Hasidim, and the like. Yes, my experience with them is very limited. But the Orthodox branch is very large, and they are very diverse in their political opinions, as distinct from conservative, reform, NJA, etc.

They are also a small minority of Israel. And some of them don’t even believe that Israel should exist until the coming of the Messiah. So I’m not sure what your point is.

Israel is mostly a secular culture, with a very strong cultural identification. And after 6 million were killed in one war, and hundreds of thousands in earlier pogroms, many of them don’t feel safe and like the idea of a country to which they can go for guaranteed safety. Even some of the left wing socialist Jews of my family have felt that way. They are not going to be willing to submit themselves to the whims of a majority who aren’t Jewish – not in the near future. That’s just the reality. Nobody is discussing the 1939 plan. Nobody cares about it. It’s a relic of history.

I’m following this thread with great interest. Here are some thoughts. First of all thank you to everyone for the thoughtful conversation. Special thanks to Bolitio and lime green anon.

“It’s not an easy topic, But it’s not a topic anyone of conscience can just ignore.”

But we can ignore so much else. I’m wondering how we can ignore what happened in Syria even as the conflict spills across the levant ultimately becoming a threat to us as Islamic militants fill the vacuum of civilization.

Sometimes indifference can be as destructive and counterproductive as hatred.

Back to the topic of this thread. Here is Andy from Eric’s show.

“and also you have to understand the Islamic mindset. To be governed by a great world power like Great Britain is one thing, uuuh, to be…not as powerful as… a Jewish state, you just have to understand Islamic doctrine culture and history. That is just not something that they can tolerate. And it adds a huge problem for them because the reality is that Israel is their best hope. When you interview Arab Israeli’s you get a whopping 70% of them that say “even if I could I would rather not live anywhere else, I know this is where I’m better off”. And that’s certainly true of the people in the Gaza strip, their best bet would be to stop their Islamic hatred of the Jews, treat them civilly and respectfully. Those borders would open up, they would be allowed to work in Israel, and when you study the economic history of the Gaza strip,>>>>>you see it doing much better when they are behaving, and it’s open and they are cooperating with the Israelis. The more they fight, the more the Israeli’s have to crack down on them to prevent terrorism, the more their economy suffers.”

I hope that non-Muslims can understand how demeaning those thoughts are. Muslims are second class citizens who may be allowed to earn some income in our society if you behave. (see caveat below – lobbing bombs is a crime or an act of war, not bad behavior)

Andy was wrong in his framing at the beginning of the show (which, btw, dropped off KHSU’s archive page a week too early as the 7/31 show did not make it to the “previous show” slot – not a conspiracy, just frustrating.). This is not about Islam as much as Andy, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Glenn Beck and Pastor Hagee would like to make it. As much as those on the Right for many reasons would like to make this about chastising Muslims for their holy text, this is clearly about real estate. One can argue if the reason we are arguing over real estate is for Israel to defend itself or for what amounts to tourism reasons, but in the end, this is about the impropriety of a poor, stubborn, non-Judeo-Christian peoples claiming title to this land.

This land will be appropriated, as power and wealth will eventually ensure. However, if it is to do so, it will be critical that this is done in a way that it could be argued God and his followers would approve. Because the narrative of good (The West) vs evil (Islam) cannot be so obviously broached.

Here are two results of what happens when a demeaned minority tries to reach for a modicum of power. One bright spot from 2013, Hanin Zoabi’s position in the Knesset was protected unanimously by the Israeli Supreme Court. Kudos Asher Grunis.

In December 2012, it was announced that the Central Elections Committee and a panel of Supreme Court judges would hold discussions on whether to disqualify Zoabi, as well as the Balad and United Arab List parties, from the 2013 election. The request for her disqualification, submitted by MK Ofir Akunis (Likud) and which obtained the necessary number of signatures, stated that “throughout her years in the Knesset, Zoabi has constantly undermined the State of Israel and has openly incited against the government, its institutions and IDF soldiers.” The request further noted that Zoabi negates Israel’s existence as a Jewish and democratic state, which makes Knesset candidates eligible for disqualification.[25]
After hearing the case, the Central Elections Committee disqualified Zoabi in a 19-9 vote.[26] The Israeli Supreme Court overturned the disqualification, with the nine-judge panel headed by Supreme Court President Asher Grunis unanimously voting to overturn the ban.[27]

Caveat. No love lost for Hamas, Boko Haram, Hezbollah, the Taliban, etc. Organized criminal groups and warlords that use Islam to justify their existence. Treat them as criminals, pull back, as we the West can, from making this a war of civilizations. Any real change from any religion will only be made from within not without. Not unless you want a world of walls and inequality.

Yes the 1939 pan is not being looked at specifically. But the basis of the plan, One State, is everywhere being mulled over. The obvious public evidence is that both the Israeli government and Palestinian authority say the other is pursuing that plan. Well, they’re both correct. Just last night Charlie Rose PBS show had a long discussion about it. But I guess they haven’t directly corresponded with you so ‘no one goes there any more’.

Though you’ve no understanding of the place or people, you opine about their motivations and mentalities. A few conversations around the kitchen table with assimilated American in-laws and you conclude they are representative of all Israelis. Shame on you for such prejudice.

Stick with opining what US foreign policy best meets the interests of the US. There you have some skin in the game and legitimate interest. Israel/Palestine is a toy to you, a proxy for the domestic political debates about the proper goals of US foreign policy and proper international role of the US. That’s the real and practical issue here, in this country and that you can affect. You should be confronting that. But that would mean airing opinions that some of your neighbors and potential clients strongly object to.

And Eric, since you’re Catholic(you were raised in a Catholic family and told that’s what you were: as the twig is bent, so grows the tree), you can consider the influence of the Pope and cardinals(very orthodox Catholics) on the body politic of Italy. Though their numbers are small their influence is great due to the larger population’s sentiments and identification with them. In fact, every nation(and community) has ‘elites’ whose influence is hugely disproportionate to their numbers.

I am always fascinated when people want to downplay Isl;am’s role in the conflict. Liberal Jon would have us all believe that it is just right wingers that see the conflict in that fashion – apparently due to something about being a conservative – but the problem with that take on the conflict is that it ignores several undisputed facts. Number one is that Islamic Doctrine says what it says and it is clearly hostile to Jews and encourages war against them. The argument that not all Muslims are so motivated by that doctrine hardly changes the fact that many, including Hamas, clearly are and freely admit it. It is set forth in their charter and their innumerable statements and comments about the conflict. If the dispute was just a land dispute, then why is it that the hundreds of thousands of Jews that lost their land following the 1948 war are not waging “jihad” against the Arab countries that indisputably wronged them. I do not know of even the most hardened, hard-core leftist radical that claims, for example, that these countries were justified in expelling the Jews and stealing their land. But you never see those displaced Jews murdering random Arabs. Many Christian Arabs lost land in Israel due to the conflict started by their Muslim neighbors but you never hear them yelling “Jesus is greatest” as they pull the trigger on a suicide vest. For some reason, it overwhelmingly just Muslim Arabs that do such things. In addition, Iran had great relations with Israel prior to its Islamic Revolution. After the revolution, Iran is one of the most hard-core proponents of destroying Israel even though Israel has never wronged Iran and neither Iran nor Persians lost land in the 1948 war or Six Day War. So what happened to cause such a 180 degree turn for Iran? The answer is clearly that Islam took control of the country. It is odd that all you have to do is listen to Hamas and read its charter and it is clear what drives Hamas – Islam; yet, Liberal Jon seems to want to ignore that fact.

I have a difficult time accepting that Islam is especially Jew-hating. During many historical periods, the treatment of Jews by Muslims was far better than the treatment of Jews by Christians.

The issue is not Islam; the issue is who interprets Islam, and whether those individuals happen to hate Jews and spread their hatred to their followers.

Most American who identify as Christians, at least in the 21st century, would be repelled by the idea of stoning gays to death, yet various Christian missionaries sent from America and Europe to Africa have created an interpretation of Christianity in some African regions in which gays are the subject of insane hostility.

Unfortunately for the world, the least-tolerant, most-bloodthirsty interpreters appear to be waxing in Islam today, while they wane in some other religions.

One further comment. There is confusion about two forms of hostility to Jews. One source of hostility is claimed to be because “Jews are the wrong religion.” If you are a non-practicing Jew, this will not be a source of hostility. But the larger form of Jew-hating has nothing to do with the actual religious beliefs, but with the cultural identity and ethnicity that people call Jewish. You can be, as I am, an atheist Jew who hasn’t set foot in a synagogue in 40 years, but it doesn’t matter. To the Jew-haters of the world, I am still a Jew, and, in mid-20th century Germany, I would have been gassed to death as such. (Of course, I might also have been gassed to death as a gay person or as an atheist, or as a communist, or as a dissenter, but that’s a different story.)

I think even the extreme Islamic emphasis in the Palestinian movement really came about after the Iranian revolution and the hornet’s nest the Soviet Union kicked up in Afghanistan. The PLO always hit me as secular – sort of a Marxist-Islamic blend.

Nan, I find that you often make sense. But I simply cannot fathom what the hell your problem is with Eric. You apparently disagree with anything he says on this topic. I think you would take issue with him if he were to say that Tel Aviv is a city in Israel.

What is the problem with discussing this stuff in a civilized manner? He’s absolutely right when he says that this is a serious subject and deserves to be treated as such.

You have spent far more time accusing him of being uninformed about the issue than you have contributing anything positive to the discussion. Far be it from me to attempt to take anything you have to say about the mid-east problem to task. After all, your STEM degree must qualify you far more than Eric’s life experiences.

You accuse him of knowing nothing about the people and then make statements about his opinions being bent by being raised in a Catholic family. You, sir, have no business hurling insults at anyone making uninformed statements after that whopper. The only person in Eric’s family that could be considered anywhere near a devout Catholic was his maternal grandmother. His mother, who was raised Catholic, is now solidly in the atheist camp and has been as anti-Catholic as is humanly possible since her late teenage years. His father’s side is entirely atheist and has been since Christ was a corporal.

You obviously have the intellectual capacity to contribute much to the discussion at hand. If you disagree with him, by all means tell him and tell him why. I just don’t understand why you can’t do it without implicitly accusing him of being a fucking childish idiot.

If Eric has opinions about what US foreign policy in pursuing US interests should be, please let fly. Or any topic where he has some skin in or direct experience with. Otherwise, Eric is simply an empty echo chamber of whatever (unattributed)sources he adheres to. Course, if he just wants to opine on what others are saying, provide the links, like his ‘hippie’ GMO advocate, etc. Then its a legalistic discussion, everyone weighing the commonly held evidence.

Eric knows nothing about Israeli or Palestinian people lives and world views but insists he has wisdom about how they should pursue their ambitions. When pressed, he cites Jewish classmates and in-laws as authority. Shows he acknowledges that direct knowledge is required and simultaneously proving he has none. “Some of my best friends are Jewish/Palestinian” is the worst sort of platitude to justify being a busybody.

And Unk John, being devout in a religious tradition isn’t necessary to have a strong identification with it. That’s especially the situation for reformers. As for being strongly anti-Catholic showing objectivity, I’ll remind you that the opposite of love isn’t hate, its detachment. Whatever your family’s conflicted religious/cultural identity may be, it won’t be vindicated/validated by projecting it onto people far distant in place and tradition.

Again, NAN, I assure you that Eric has no identification with Catholicism at all, let alone a strong one.

I hesitate to say this, trite as it is, but his opinions are based on his world view much the same as yours are. Furthermore, I have seen nothing to convince me that his understanding of the peoples of the mid-east is any less valid than yours.

I do suspect that most contributors to this thread would agree on much concerning this problem, but it seems that people would rather argue about less important items within it than to concentrate on the common points.

Anyone can express and opinion but its not necessarily a worthwhile, or informed one. And often that needs to be highlighted to those who forget, ignore, or are simply arrogant imperialists. Americans always have standing to opine on American interests anywhere on the globe.

Here’s a lengthy Op-ed piece of a discussion with the President, who I feel has a lot more knowledge of what are the sentiments in the Middle East and the interests of the US than any commenter here. My opinion is that he’s correctly identified US interests in maintaining a policy to support “politics of no victor/no vanquished”.

Though much of the op ed’s specifics are about Iraq, it makes clear that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has the same dynamic. Bottom line is the shrill US partisans who choose up sides are subverting US interests and advancing foreign agendas to the detriment of the US for their own political gain.

As to Eric’s family religious identification, I only brought it up to make an analogy with secular Israeli sentiments, and because Eric wrote in another thread that his family tradition is Catholic. Don’t have the exact quote. But apparently there’s some angst about that self identification among family members. Eric can be more specific for himself about it if he wishes, or not. Really isn’t my agenda to label Eric’s religious self identity other than how he describes it. But I do firmly believe we’re all the product of our experiences and in particular childhood experiences have more lasting effects.

There is an article in the LoCO today about Turkish – soon-to-be-President Erdogan. What James Tressler misses is Turkey has since Erdogan traded their unstable secular government for a stable Islamist-light government lead by Erdogan. I do not think the rise of the Islamist state in Turkey is unrelated to the Bush wars in Iraq or the exploitative religious polarization in the Middle East. When I was younger, Turks were proud to be aligned with America and the West. People would tell me how proud they were to fight with us in Korea. It’s different now.

If leftists are subject to a great, thorough propaganda that stems in the hatred of Jews, what about the simple and clear propaganda that declares a) this is not about land, this is about Islam, b) the inhumanity of warfare that kills in a proportion of 20 to 1 – and continues for whatever reason* c) the US use of vetoes to prevent the UN from condemning Israeli aggression throughout our lifetimes?

Having said all that, my response to articles like the one you posted or the one from the NYT above? No matter what, violence against innocents is an unforgivable crime. That list above is not an excuse for young angry Muslims or latent neo-Nazi’s to commit this bullshit terrorism against those of Jewish descent. Period.

Liberal policies depend #1 on security. Those who would use violence as a means to an end cannot benefit from that violence. That includes both terrorists and the world’s most powerful countries’ war (or organized and morally justified acts of violence) against those who lack power. When we are forced to use violence, like President Obama is doing now in Iraq, one simple liberal precept of the use of that violence should be… the ones committing it, even if it’s use is morally justifiable, should not benefit from it’s use.

* Israel has the right and responsibility to decapitate Hamas, now. It needs to end an inhumane war that results in a ledger of deaths of 20 to 1. Do it and then ask the Gazan population to try their elections again and tell them if their leadership bombs them again, Israel will be forced to remove their elected government again. Although authoritarian, that course would be more constructive and humanitarian than their current policies.

Israel has the right and responsibility to decapitate Hamas, now. It needs to end an inhumane war that results in a ledger of deaths of 20 to 1.

The world has the right and responsibility to decapitate Hamas now, or to occupy Gaza to enable its population to live in relative safety by eliminating Hamas’ weaponry.

I find it hard to believe that Israel thinks it could do this on its own, yet does not do it. Perhaps it could make the attempt, but it would end up lending further support to the people who say its self-defense is evil.

Yes, it’s horrible to shoot into civilian areas. But my suspicion is that Israel has actually tried hard to keep civilian casualties to a minimum — not out of sympathy with Palestinians, but out of a recognition that the country loses support in Europe and America every time a Palestinian dies.

I’m convinced that the world could end Hamas in a flash, at the expense of costing a few corporations and one-percenters some of their income. It’s the same with the war in Ukraine, and probably the same with every conflict worldwide. But the war industry is a huge one in the United States, and non-Murkans don’t matter to politically powerful Murkans, except as kids to deport.

Now, this report includes the following quote: “I can assure you unequivocally that the IDF does not target civilians,” the IDF spokesman Lt Col Peter Lerner said in an email to the Guardian. “Hamas chooses where these battles are conducted and, despite Israel’s best efforts to prevent civilian casualties, Hamas is ultimately responsible for the tragic loss of civilian life. Specifically in the case of UN facilities, it is important to note the repeated abuse of UN facilities by Hamas, namely with at least three cases of munitions storage within such facilities.”

That is unusually balanced for the Guardian, which devotes no further investigation to the question of whether Hamas is committing the war crime of storing weapons in UN schools.

But let’s look at the numbers the the Guardian reports: 270,000 persons sheltering in 90 facilities, dozens of which are schools. Deaths amongst these 270,000 from the ongoing Israeli attacks: 47. Injuries, approximately 300.

I will repeat that one death is too many. But if, for a moment, it is possible to imagine that munitions are being stored at UN schools and then fired into Israel, and that Israel is trying to prevent these munitions from being fired against its citizens, then Israel has killed 0.02% of civilians sheltering next to enemy munitions — one in five thousand. And look at the world reaction to that.

-can’t fool suzy, unk. You’re the catholic mother’s brother, ie the guy in white. The hair and profile match the mother’s perfectly. And the way you’re fondling Eric it looks like you might be his father too. And perhaps secret lover as well. The mystery is hidden before our eyes.

NAN, here’s the passage that unravels the family mystery:“If ye speaketh to the uncle, ye speaketh to the father, for my uncle and my true father are one. Thus I sent him forth to justly settle the martyrdom of myself and to pursue the true identity of my atheist commie virgin mother. But now he’s gone and shut up about the whole thing. And the grail and holy spirits are missing from the inner temple too! The old sot. I don’t have time for this, time is the devil’s business. And my Jewish wife just called on the hotline. She wants me to go to another Unitarian camp meeting weenie roast this weekend, argh, so look for a report on chemtrails soon”

Mitch: “But my suspicion is that Israel has actually tried hard to keep civilian casualties to a minimum — not out of sympathy with Palestinians, but out of a recognition that the country loses support in Europe and America every time a Palestinian dies.”

So your saying what allot of others, including me, have been saying: Israel really does not care about Palestinians at all. They wouldn’t try at all to prevent casualties if it wasn’t for the support of other nations. Thats the problem. And the more they kill civilians and keep Gaza under blockade, the more support for radicals like Hamas. The never ending argument of Israel that they must slaughter and oppress Gaza in the name of defense is exactly what fuels their need to “defend” themselves in the first place! And the politics behind all of this has nothing to do with Jews. Its about humans and power. It sucks for Israelis and really really sucks for Palestinians.

Not that it matters, but I think a common American presumption is that we always, and uniquely, have the ability to decide the outcome of any military conflict. And the assumption beneath that is military conflicts have well defined endings that resolve the combatant’s issues.

So, with that presumption and assumption we an obligation to debate how to resolve conflicts as serious matters since WE are the ones who will determine their endings. Hence serious blog posts. And those debates revolve around which combatant is more moral or less culpable so we here on Mt. Olympus(Sinai?) can smite the evildoer and bless the righteous. Its all a great myth that leaves us open to all manner of disinformation, propaganda, and plain old marketing and lobbying. Thus we overreach and are surprised, again and again.

IMHO, our error is being unable to honestly articulate our interests and instead conflate them with projecting force. As a result we are more unsure of ourselves and a less reliable partner with other nations. I think the President is saying something along those lines in his interview.

I did not communicate clearly. I should have said “not just” out of sympathy with Palestinians,or “not primarily” out of sympathy with Palestinians.

When someone is actively trying to kill you — actively trying, not just willing to accept your death as collateral damage — your focus is not on them; it is on you. At least it is that way with me. And when you have attempted to find a resolution in past decades, and been repeatedly rebuffed with violence, you tend to lose sympathy for the other person.

NaN,

Thank you for the link. President Obama is probably always the smartest person in the room — it feels very strange for me to feel that way about a President. But the world’s willingness to accept those who build and sell arms to parties engaged in conflict is part of what prevents “no victor, no vanquished” thinking from taking root. Men with rockets think differently than men with fists.

Mitch, the IDF is waging an incredibly sanitary war given the circumstances. I agree. I would shutter to think what would happen if overnight Hamas was given the IDF’s military capabilities.

Sometimes it’s hard for me to internalize body counts. One way I find truth in war coverage is comparing landscapes. It’s why it was so important for Bush et. al. to say we want to take the war to them.

I haven’t seen many pictures of it, but I’m trying to imagine the difference in landscapes and what work it’s going to take to rebuild a modern state in Gaza and, say, in Tel Aviv. Seems to me those who will grow up in Gaza will find a way to hate something, anything, that makes life so unfair for those on one side of the wall vs those on the other side of the wall.

Also,…I spent 5, literally five minutes trying to listen to an internet stream of FOX news last week. Sean Hannity was on the ground embedded with an IDF spokesman in a former Gazan tunnel. His conclusion, paragraph 33 of that Guardian article. The narrative you are looking for, the IDF line is out there, just not in the media you are used to taking in.

FOX is on the internet too. I recommend clicking on Drudge once a day to find out what will be on FOX, Rush and Hannity. It’s very useful information, imho. In the end Mitch, when America speaks to the world, it’s doing so with our combined voices. I’d love it if it would only be Obama and Clinton they would hear, but it’s not, it’s Clinushama. Drudge/Rush/FOX represent our foreign policy as much as Kos/NYT/MSNBC. I feel like it’s good to know who we are as a whole, not just who we’d like to be.

You will have to decode a bunch of it, but it’s pretty straight forward. For example there is a picture of Hillary at the beach with the link titled “HILLARY BEACHED!”. What that means is Hillary is heavy like a whale, and also a woman. Maybe women who are overweight should not be President.

I also heard a piece over the weekend on violence and neuroscience. Turns out that extreme violence is the best way to encourage psychopathic genes – we all have – to create killers. Its nature and nurture, so extreme trauma and witness to violence at a young age has disastrous effects on brain development (mainly to do with serotonin) and studies show that these people can end up being very violent themselves.

More reason why an 8 year occupation of Gaza including three supper bloody invasions and bombings over that period does not increase Israels security. It only increases the odds of people growing up to be more sympathetic of extremists like Hamas, and more likely to do violent, desperate acts.

The occupation of Gaza ended about 8 years ago. How the Gazans reacted to the dismantling of the Israeli settlements and the evacuation of the settlers was well described by Dennis Ross in a piece he wrote for The Washington Post a couple of days ago. It’s true that violence begets more violence. The leaders of the Allied forces in World War II were well aware of that fact — that’s why total victory over Germany and Japan was the goal. Total. No “cease-fire.” No chance of re-arming. Utter annihilation of the Axis forces, complete devastation of German and Japanese societies. And those two countries have been model world-citizens ever since. —– If Israel did what it would probably like to do, it would not be allowed in polite society. If it treated the Hamas terrorists and their human shields as our “greatest generation” (no ironic ‘scare quotes’ intended) dealt with the enemies of 70 years ago, it would be roundly condemned. (It’s helps to be a huge country, one that’s almost impossible to boycott.)

Eric, although this article is about only one instance of religious influence, it gives some insight into the way Israeli cultural values are established.

Its one more example that your superficial encounters with American Jewish people are worse than useless as a basis to characterize Israeli society. To my mind, your lumping together Jews of different nationality as to their social and cultural practices, is a form of antisemitism. Though I believe in your case it comes not from maliciousness but from arrogance and intellectual laziness.

“WHY is the world silent while Christians are being slaughtered in the Middle East and Africa? In Europe and in the United States, we have witnessed demonstrations over the tragic deaths of Palestinians who have been used as human shields by Hamas, the terrorist organization that controls Gaza.”

a) that makes 3 of 3 religions as victims. b) that’s paragraph 1 – mention of the human shields and no mention of asymmetric warfare, landscapes of destruction, refugees, land grabs, or any Israeli (or Christian – Pastor Hagee I’m looking at you) culpability in the rest of the story.

Just for the record. This might be what the left is reacting against, in addition to extant and deep anti-semitic propaganda.

I don’t want to minimize anti-semitism Mitch, and I know it exists, especially in Europe and, I’m sure on the left too, maybe myself, I can’t be the judge of that. But there is something real that is wrong that the left is also fighting against, like it would even if Israel was primarily Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, Muslim, agnostic, atheist, etc.

Is the “left” demonstrating against the Turkish occupation of Cyprus? (Is it even aware of Turkey’s aggression there?) Is the “left” calling for divestment from China? (Tibetans would much rather have the Israelis as their neighbors than China, I’d wager.) Is the “left” up in arms against the Russians because of their actions in Chechnya? (Just compare the death tolls in Gaza with the civilian deaths in Chechnya — and put the words “asymmetric warfare” in perspective.) Does the “left” object to the description of our World War II veterans as the “greatest generation”? (Talk about “asymmetric warfare”! Look at the Japanese casualties versus American deaths in that war.) Is the “left” concerned with the millions of refugees from Syria or Iraq? (Or only with the refugees from a war that is now close to 70 years old? There were about 40 million refugees in Europe after WW2 — all of whom were absorbed by other European countries, none of whom were placed in refugee camps that still exist more than 60 years after their creation. Does the “left” ask “why” these camps still exist and “why” there are no European refugee camps for any of the 40 million post-WW2 refugees?) — I could go on and on about the bias and the blindness of the “left,” and I understand perfectly why Mitch no longer calls himself a leftist.

Yeh, its called war and violence. I dont consider my self ‘left’ – by I oppose militarism. I agree with anyone’s right to self defense. But I reject killing innocent people to achieve that goal. After 9-11, my country murdered more than 100,000 people in Afghanistan and Iraq that had absolutely nothing to do with it. I do not support that kind of action. And I protest Israels gross negligence for human life and dignity in Gaza. That is not the same as supporting Hamas or hating Jews.

You say “gross negligence.” I say: Israel deserves a medal for minimizing Gazan casualties, and I say that because similar battles elsewhere have produced many more deaths than the 2000 reported in Gaza.

Its one more example that your superficial encounters with American Jewish people are worse than useless as a basis to characterize Israeli society. To my mind, your lumping together Jews of different nationality as to their social and cultural practices, is a form of antisemitism. Though I believe in your case it comes not from maliciousness but from arrogance and intellectual laziness.

First of all, I do not endeavor to “characterize” Israeli society. Israel is among the most racially diverse countries in the world.

Secondly, my “superficial encounters” are family based and close friend based, as well as having been immersed in socialist left wing politics all of my life which is very heavily Jewish influenced – from my grandmother who was a communist and Abraham Lincoln Brigade veteran to a woman in college who is also hardcore leftist and staunch zionist to attending a high school in SF which was two-thirds Jewish in which debates about Israel raged and I was smart enough to watch from a distance.

I don’t “characterize” Israel as anything except that culturally it has forged a nationalism which is probably stronger than any other partly in the aftermath of the Holocaust and history of European pogroms, but also because even the peace activists there do not feel safe. The woman I knew was in Israel and heard the booms of the rockets as they landed in the distance, only to have her work take her to France where she had to hide from a massive anti-Semitic near-riot.

Yes, they are a very diverse people. But they are brought together by the fact that they are broadly hated in the west as “Zionists,” “Christ killers,” and in recent decades “infidels.” In the past week, Jews and their supporters planning to demonstrate were silenced in social democratically tolerant Sweden due to threats of violence. And the Palestinian Authority, the “moderates,” approve of school curriculum materials based upon false assertions about Judaism originating with Stormfront, a Nazi website. This along with a history of Palestinian resistance sending teenage girls strapped with bombs into dance halls to kill herself and other children – and where a friend of mine inadvertently leaves a backpack on a bus leading to a bomb scare.

I will read the article, but from the intensity of my in-law Jewish family on the subject, including my wife’s communist grandmother, and so many old friends and people I’ve worked with for so many years – many of whom oppose Israeli policies – all of them read the Hamas charter with visceral terror. All of them.

You can add me to your list of Jews who read the Hamas charter with visceral pain.

I don’t feel terrorized by Hamas, because I don’t live in Israel, but I certainly do feel Hamas would prefer that all Jews were dead Jews.

And I don’t feel terrorized by bolithio’s opinions, but I do hope that one day he wakes up and realizes he’s been taken in by the fashionable people, who have abused his compassion. It’s nothing that hasn’t happened to me — I still recall with embarrassment some protests I engaged in due only to my own ignorance and the resulting trust I took in other people’s opinions.

It’s only when I grew older that I realized that just because I agree with someone on a bunch of issues doesn’t mean I should conclude that the person knows what they are talking about, on those issues or others.

I would like to tell you, although support or appreciation from me seems to be the last thing people want, how much your well timed first comment in this thread meant to me personally. I had just experience water-cooler talk from a person in my “chain of command” and support from other’s in my group that basically echoed the editorial cartoon the Times Standard had printed weeks earlier with hooked nosed, weaponed and garbed personages placing infants under a mosque, hospital or school, whatever it was. (except minus the racism).

It’s the meme that Mitch lamented was only in paragraph 33 of the Guardian (again minus the racism) – it’s the meme that allows asymmetric warfare to continue – it’s a meme that I think you’ve figured out despite the common wisdom in the US. Thank you.

Maybe I am bringing this up to one up Mitch’s victimhood, I don’t think so, the reason I had to bring this up is the absurdity of this phrase.

What that tells me Mitch is you really need to spend more time listening to the right wing. Terror is a very specific word with a very specific, even legal meaning these days – especially to the right wing.

Thank you b. Where Mitch thinks he should have felt terror, you really helped this individual,during an especially trying day, remember that some can see through what I consider the propaganda of the right wing. Not only that but they can then argue strongly, passionately, and I believe, correctly about it.

I hope you understand Mitch that I distinguish your thoughts from the right ring (to include Erasmus) on this issue. I know your reaction to real left wing anti-semitism is genuine and righteous.

I just think your reaction to the anti-semitism of the left is blinding you from reacting justly to the reason you went out to the leftist protests in the first place – oh – also from the underlying right wing anti semitism which I believe is and always has been the real problem. (one major exception to this very general rule – I can see where far-left, especially union and possibly violent characteristics could also lead to a virulent and dangerous form of anti-semitism.)

Erasmus – I think there has been some global consensus on Cyprus which may be one of the reasons why it is no longer a conflict zone. Importantly this involves UN agreed to borders. I wonder how the Middle East would look today if in the eighties we did not vote alone with Israel on so many UN resolutions. I guess we have to decide, are we maybe a little pro-Israel biased or was the rest of the world’s vote’s indicative of an underlying anti-Semitism? I know we will not agree on the answer to that question.

Regarding demonstrations? I’m not sure why you hold that standard for this discussion. The only demonstrating I see these days on public property are by private loan sharks and pizza businesses trying to sell product.

I try to add as many caveats to my opinions on the Middle East already including my hatred of Hamas, ISIS, Boko Haram etc. If you deem it necessary, I could include my incredible anger and frustration at Russia, China etc.

BTW, what are your thoughts on Chinese/Ouigur conflicts? How do you think the Crimean Tartars will survive the Russian night? I look forward to your righteous anger and demonstrations too.

One annoying misunderstanding I have to clear up ” Is the “left” concerned with the millions of refugees from Syria or Iraq?” When I use the word “refugee” in the Middle East, I was speaking exactly about these refugees.

Erasmus – here* is a great map I got from Drudge this am (I’ve been watching Drudge every day to watch for his daily racist take on the continuing Ferguson tragedy – a root problem of which NAN nailed in the other thread). My thoughts – ISIS is a Sunni Muslim organization. One needs to understand this to understand what is going on. It exists because the residual Sunni’s remaining in the devastation from the Syrian and Iraq wars in the levant are continuing their war of attrition the only place they can. They are blocked from Assad’s newly established Alawite minority controlled Syrian stronghold and thus consolidated Iraq and were working on taking majority Kurdish lands in Eastern Iraq.

Warlords are like water, they will take the path of least resistance. ISIS is a Sunni Islam organization – they are a more violent and criminal splinter group of al qaeda. Sunni Islam is my default group of identity in the Middle East as a Turk (and Tunisian). Still their brand of internecine violence is something I don’t recognize and nor do many of the refugees (or the dead) of the Middle East.

The residual population of the levant is one borne in violence. A violence we were wrong a) in bring into the Middle East in 1989 and then again in 2003 and b) we were wrong not to contain the violence in 2011 or 2012.

Have said all that – ISIS is an organized criminal orgainization that needs to be removed. We did brake it, and it seems we are not willing to help when needed proactively. All it seems we can do now is react when the violence threatens a group or individual we identify with.

This opinion piece on the demise of the two-state liberal Zionist should not be missed imho.

“The dissenting left doesn’t have all the answers, but it has the principles upon which solutions must be based. Both liberal Zionism and the left accept the established historical record: Jews forced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes to make way for the establishment of a Jewish state. But the liberals have concluded that it was an acceptable price others had to pay for the state. The left accepts that an egregious injustice was done. The indivisibility of human, civil and political rights has to take precedence over the dictates of religion and political ideology, in order not to deny either Palestinians or Jews the right to national self-determination. The result, otherwise, will be perpetual conflict.”

Also, I hope Andrew, you appreciated the editorial cartoon this past week in the TS that had an Islamic terrorists ripping the popular “COEXIST” bumper sticker from a wall, leaving only the bloody crescent moon. Classy, Times Standard.

Eric first asserts the following:“I do not endeavor to “characterize” Israeli society.

And then he proceeds to establish his relevance and bonafides precisely by characterizing in very narrow terms the few people with Jewish ancestry he’s encountered

“….having been immersed in socialist left wing politics all of my life which is very heavily Jewish influenced

“my in-law Jewish family on the subject, including my wife’s communist grandmother,”

Though Israeli may be a very diverse lot, the Jews Eric whole expereince is with certainly aren’t but it supports the stereotype Eric wants to promulgate and reinforce, Jews are left wing. Eric is sickening because he truly believes the form of antisemitism that falsely characterizes Jews as being anarchists and revolutionaries.

But that’s not enough for Eric. The most damning form of antisemtism he’s yet divulged is to come:

“But they[Israelis] are brought together by the fact that they are broadly hated in the west as “Zionists,” “Christ killers,” and in recent decades “infidels.”

And Eric can’t understand why a Jewish homeland in Germany was rejected

While Nazi antisemitism denied Jews humanity, Eric’s is more insidious. He denies Jews their religion. and declares them to be defined as the objects of others’ hatred. In that way, Eric promotes a recasting of Toynbeeism.

What truly unites Jews is devotion to their holy scripture. For the sake of that alone, many Jews have chosen death. The willingness to sacrifice for that, if absolutely necessary, is what perpetuates the Jewish nation. And other Jews have forsaken it, choosing to assimilate and pass on only shadows of a former heritage.

The disaffected, alienated, or disgruntled Jews are among the ones Eric encountered and has extrapolated onto all Jews and Israeli society. His ideas about Jews in general and Israelis in particular are just stereotypes from the political camp he takes in as whole cloth and denies Jews their Jewishness.

NAN, you are either deliberately dense or so fucking stupid it’s pathetic. No way am I going to waste any effort responding to that bullshit. It’s the most pathetic and vindictive crap you’ve written to date, and that’s really saying something.

I’m standard-issue secular American Jew. The Jewish people I grew up with very definitely considered themselves “to be defined as the objects of others’ hatred.” Nearly to a one, we had no interest in scripture. We defined ourselves by our maintenance of various traditions associated with the religion, but nobody believed God was involved in the events the traditions celebrated. Matzoh is not belief.

All I know is the community in which I grew up was fiercely pro-Israel, not because we believed God had given Israel to the Jews, but because we were damned if we were going to let the Holocaust repeat without trying to change the game.

And yes, it’s very standard for Jews in America to be atheist or agnostic, some perhaps more so in private than in public. It takes more faith (or more *something*) than I have for anyone to believe in an all-loving God that lets six million of his “chosen” get murdered by Nazis. If you think most people who identify as Jews believe the religion known as Judaism, I think you’re wrong.

Also, revisions to Israel’s early history (which revisions I assume to be accurate) had not yet penetrated my community, so everyone really believed Israel had changed empty desert — with maybe a few passing shepherds — into a vibrant, blooming land.

“…Toynbee’s poster child of why Jews shouldn’t exist today”?! This is simply nonsensical. Toynbee was hardly a dispassionate, open-minded, rational authority on Jews or Judaism. (Just read the link, provided above, to the Herzog – Toynbee debate — which the professor clearly lost.) — NAN is not unintelligent, but this exchange makes me wonder. I’ve never witnessed Eric’s losing his temper to this extent, and my first reaction to reading it was: someone must have posted this without Eric’s knowing it. But, upon further reflection, I understood how justified it was.

Well NAN, your McCarthyist red-baiting is a little annoying. Apparently you don’t give Jews permission to be “anarchists and revolutionaries.” And it’s anti-Semitic to suggest that a Jewish person might opt to be. If he’s not religious, and religious in the way you want him to be, he can’t be Jewish.

Is it any wonder that you have no comprehension of the middle east that you are pulling an anachronistic proposal you would impose on the people on both sides who want no part of it?

I did lose my temper. Was up really late and should have waited until morning to respond. I apologize to everyone for that.

But now I’ll just play by NAN’s rules. Take quotes out of context, add my own innuendos, and stretch them to absurdities. NAN’s rules mean I get to ignore quotation marks. NAN’s rules mean I get to ignore the history of Judaism and Israel, and ignore the fact that Israel is socialist to the core, economically and culturally, and has been since its inception. I get to ignore the fact that even orthodox Jews, when they vote, support leftist political figures when Israel is not at the center of the campaign, and have always done so. And I get to ignore the Jewish contributions to leftist/socialist thought over the past two centuries, from the influence of Jewish prophetic writings on Marx’s historical materialism, to the fact that over half of the left wing intellectual literature of the 19th and early 20th centuries was written by Jewish thinkers – many of whom were raised in religious families.

You know, to be called an anti-semite is one thing, but for the accusation to come from someone with such a shallow understanding of the history and culture he’s citing as evidence – just boggles the mind.

Yes, the Nazis accused Jews of being predominantly leftist. Because the Nazis said it, doesn’t make it false. It is in fact the truth. And it’s a tradition of an emphasis on social justice that most Jews are proud of, in the US and elsewhere – even when they turn to the right.

“Apparently you don’t give Jews permission to be ‘anarchists and revolutionaries.’ And it’s anti-Semitic to suggest that a Jewish person might opt to be. If he’s not religious, and religious in the way you want him to be, he can’t be Jewish.”

-the orthodoxy embedded in some of you may disapprove, but i love it when Eric pounds on the table. He is hot, hot, HOT! Specially late at night when the passionate influence of his communist grandmother comes into full play. I can see her now, slamming her clenched fist down on the dinner table to make a radical point to the young impressionable EK.

“And it’s anti-Semitic to suggest that a Jewish person might opt to be”

No Eric, I didn’t suggest that, I said that your claim to know about Jewish(Israeli) worldviews because of your association with left wingers who were Jewish demonstrates YOUR prejudice that being Jewish implies being left wing and secular. That’s your antisemitism.

As to you’re being tired, nice lame excuse. Just like any sleazy politco who is caught with his hair down acting how he really is. I called you on the childish and petty snit you had after seeing the implication and meaning of your own words. When you saw some others also noticed, the political calculus clicked in your head

Eric you make unfounded assertions and incorrect speculation and call it rebuttal. But it isn’t. You have no facts about Jewish voters. By your flatly wrong assertion Netanyahu couldn’t be elected. Here’s some historical perspective on Jewish political orientation.

Eric, you may not like what you words mean but they’re still yours. Relegating Jews to a box you’ve assigned them seems to you like a compliment, but it isn’t. Its just as antisemitic as any other stereotype. It may well be completely consistent with your very limited and conscribed association with a particular group of secular Jews, but its still false.

-oh, suzy forgot–Mitch said he’s into the “godhead”, and i’m sure the godhead wouldn’t allow six million Jews to be slaughtered. Must’ve been the goathead that did it. Maybe Peter knows how that happened–

I believe there may be a beyond-human intelligence and purpose to the universe. I believe it is reasonable to hold certain things sacred. I’m also an atheist, because that word best describes my lack of belief in God or God-like gods.

I could do what various intelligent religious people do. They seem, from where I stand, to have very nuanced understandings that we are not the be all and end all, and they choose to use the word “God” to describe the thing they know they cannot know.

But that might give support to the people who think they know God’s will, not to mention his hairstyle. And I’d never want to do that, so I use the word atheist, as it is the one that most truthfully describes my relationship to the personified God so many religions peddle. Yeah, I used the word “godhead.” It’s the closest religious word I can come up with to what I believe. It sounds to me like it represents “the source of all that matters” with less confusion than the word “god.”

I believe there may be a beyond-human intelligence and purpose to the universe.

-i accept that Mitch, but it sounds more agnostic than atheist to my way of thinking. Btw, if it wasn’t clear, suzy was teasing about the word godhead. I know what you mean 😉

To be honest, really really, i think maybe the best term to explain what i mean is the “Universe”. But then there are implications from science and other places about what that suggests, just like their are from religions about what “God” means. Right? Anyway, that hurdle kicked aside, i’m okay with saying that i follow the directions i get from the Universe. But one could substitute God, or the godhead etc.

NAN, you are either deliberately dense or so fucking stupid it’s pathetic. No way am I going to waste any effort responding to that bullshit. It’s the most pathetic and vindictive crap you’ve written to date — I apologize to everyone for that.

-if Eric was more in tune with God (or the Universe) he’d let his rancor fly and not let it be censored by some phony moral regulation that tells him to be a nice boy. This is what you get from bland secular apologists. He’s certainly not modeling after Jehovah who is known to be wrathful to the max. NAN’s “vindictiveness”is much closer to that spirit. But then EK thinks of himself as an agnostic too, so no wonder he vacillates so.

Of course then according to the beliefs of some geniuses here, he let his “animal nature” get the best of him–pretty scary–LOL!

“since I knew from experience that God was not offended by blasphemy, that on the contrary, he could encourage it, because he wished to evoke not only man’s bright and positive side but also his darkness and ungodliness, God in his omniscience arranged everything so that Adam and Eve would sin. God intended them to sin.”
Jung

And last but not least, this is a test for those who are undecided, like you Mitch, and especially for Eric. It’s an illustration of a young man’s vision of the source of all that matters, and the source of all that doesn’t matter, can you tell which one is which?

Eric , crude attempts to shift your discomfort and inability to rebut your essential antsemitic attitude is just pathetic. And imaginary, concocted out of thin air references to my experience can’t distract from your proudly asserted limited experience with only secular Jews as a credential.

Oh yeah, here’s a recent update of that 1939 plan you declared ancient and irrelevant. Its from the Washington Post just 10 months ago.

Speaking of sources, what are the sources of your many assertions, besides your backside? It seems your ignorance is exceeded only by your penchant for misinformation.

Though they[opponents and skeptics of the two-state solution] are sometimes depicted as a right-wing fringe by their critics in the peace camp, there is considerable support for their ideas. An April survey of Jewish Israelis for Ariel University, which is in a Jewish settlement in the West Bank, found that 35 percent said the government should annex all the land of Judea and Samaria — the biblical names some Israelis use to describe the West Bank.

The painting is by a Mormon painter, and he is painting the “first vision.” (Wikipedia helps.) The guy on the left is God and the guy on the right is Jesus.

The painter both captured the fact that God never ages and also saved himself some effort.

My question is, why doesn’t God look like a newborn, if he never ages? Or, if you’re Catholic, why doesn’t God look like a blastula? I mean, ambiguous mid 30s is fine, but why in God’s name did he stop there? Back problems?

-nope, Jesus is the one on the left. For the bible says, “Jesus has died and has risen and resides at the right hand of God”. Another way of expressing that symbolism is to say that Jesus is the right hand of God. For the hand and the body are one.

And in the beginning God sent his right hand to play upon his organ. See Eric? The song he played is called, “This Is All That Matters”. As for gender–the organ music is called a hymn. Feminists are fighting to change that.

“Soldiers, present at the site, stood around and watched as Amru claimed that ‘this is his land.’ Eventually he went back home and behaved himself, after being filmed himself by the journalist.”

From NAN’s second link from August 28, 2014 at 9:27 pm

“Those borders would open up, they would be allowed to work in Israel, and when you study the economic history of the Gaza strip,>>>>>you see it doing much better when they are behaving, and it’s open and they are cooperating with the Israelis.”

Andy Stunich on EK’s show last month.

Something about the word “behave” addressed to another law-abiding adult, or worse, a minority population that does not have economic or political power.

Let’s see how this works if we can not depend on empathy…

US citizens should simply behave and vote – it’s a civic duty after all.

Or this – the large majority of people in HumCo need to start behaving and live in towns. It’s the only sustainable route forward.

Its always a revelation when your perspective on an issue is broadened and changed by simply listening to and observing those who are directly involved in both causing the issue and having to agree to any resolution. That does take both effort and willingness to question presumptions. Its a personal habit that education was classically intended to develop.

But Its easier for those removed from an issue to just adopt as whole truth whatever those who happen to be around them are saying. Especially easier for the intellectually lazy/inept uninvolved who really only care about affirming their existing prejudices and reinforcing emotional connections with relatives and friends.

Netanyahu has just announced that Israel is “appropriating” (stealing) another 1,000 acres of Palestinian land in the West Bank. Once again undermining Abbas and the Palestinian Authority, while adding to the appeal of militants like Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

Im sure it wont be long before Israel will muster up the courage to kill a few more thousand people to ‘protect their existence’. They will need to put down the terrorist snakes. Then, once all is quite, they can take more land. And when the people throw rocks and bottle rockets in desperate protest, once again their existence will be at risk and more dead bodies will follow.

Palestinian militants in Hamas-controlled Gaza fire thousands of rockets into Israel and launch attacks through cross-border tunnels, and Israel bombs and invades Gaza. Outcome: Ceasefire, Gaza remains territorially intact, no Israeli troops occupying Gaza, no Israeli settlements in Gaza. Hamas more popular than before the conflict.

Meanwhile, Palestinians in the PA-controlled West Bank do not fire rockets at Israel, do not launch attacks on Israelis, instead rely on non-violent means and international diplomacy to try to defend their rights. Outcome: Israel announces it will annex another 1,000 acres of land in the West Bank.

The Palestinian Authority government in the West Bank has recognized Israel’s right to exist, even though Israel does not reciprocate by recognizing the Palestinians’ right to statehood. Faced with hostile extremists in Gaza and more moderate leadership in the West Bank, does Israel reward the more moderate leadership in the West Bank? No, Israel takes this moderation as a sign of weakness, and as a green light to steal more land from the area controlled by the moderates, severely undermining the legitimacy of these moderates in the eyes of their countrymen.

At this point it wouldn’t surprise me if Hamas and their militant allies were to win the next Palestinian election, not just in Gaza, but in the West Bank. Because it’s crystal clear that Israel intends to continue occupying and gradually annexing the West Bank, while the PA stands by, helpless to stop them. Pretty hard to run on a platform of peace and moderation while your neighbor annexes more and more of your territory.

People seem to love lecturing the Israelis on proper etiquette, as we squat on land stolen from Mexico and/or Native Americans, as we dwell within borders protecting us from those lethal Canadians and those perfidious Mexicans. Ah, those greedy Jews, who couldn’t make it in Europe and elsewhere and had to reclaim land that they settled thousands of years ago — why couldn’t they be as civilized as we are? I mean, Israel owns one fourth of one per cent of the land in the Mideast (when we include Iran in the map). What gives them the right to it? We Americans have the right to our land, of course, and white Australians obviously are the rightful owners of their continent (no one is calling for a “right of return” for all the refugees we created, whose descendants inhabit Canada and elsewhere). —- Seriously, all this Israel-bashing is both distasteful and ignorant. “Palestine” (never an independent nation, and an entity ruled by the British through WW2) originally included the land we now call Jordan; the Jews were offered half of the remaining 20% and the “Palestinians’ (a “people” without their own language who never claimed a right to ANY land until the Jews started to return in great numbers) the other half. The Jews accepted the UN offer, the Arabs rejected it (thinking that they could surely kill the nascent Jewish state in the bud). Israel was victorious, and the land they didn’t conquer was occupied by Jordan and Egypt for almost 20 years (until the 6-Day War). No steps were taken to create a “Palestinian” state from 1948 to 1967 — there was no Israeli occupation; a country could have been created with a stroke of a pen. Instead, attempts to wipe Israel off the map never ceased. One could surmise that a “Palestinian state” is merely a smokescreen to delegitimize and destroy the Jewish state. Whenever a viable plan for statehood is offered, it is spurned (and no counter offer is made — look at Arafat in 2000 and his response to Clinton’s plan). Meanwhile, 20% of Israel’s population is Arab, and they enjoy political rights unparalleled in the Arab world (and face some discrimination too, of course — but certainly not enough to induce them to flee to an Arab country). What about the occupied land? It’s closer to a no-man’s-land at this point. Who is sovereign? Surely not any Arabs — when it was offered to the “Palestinians” and was rejected, and then occupied by Jordan and Egypt and then conquered in the 6-Day War, it belonged to no one. The UN could have taken it over; the British could have returned to their former colonial role. It was a vacuum, politically — a vacuum that happened to coincide with ancestral land of the Jews and that happened to be a launching pad (in the 6-Day War) for invading countries. And “goyim” have the nerve to denounce Jewish settlements on this land! “No Jews on their ancestral land!’ (But Arabs — over a million of them — are free to remain in Israel.) — That is preposterous. People accuse Israel of “apartheid” and ignore the status of Jews in Jordan (right next door) — they are verboten (no citizenship is even possible for them). To me, that’s worse than apartheid — and no one raises a hue and cry over it. — Gaza is now ruled by Hamas, whose founder was named by Osama bin Laden as one of his chief ideological inspirations. The goal of Hamas is to eliminate the Jewish state. Children and civilians are routinely used as human shields (and crocodile tears are shed when they inevitably die). 2000 people were killed in 30 days of fighting. By way of comparison, the “civilized” British killed at least 42,000 civilians in Hamburg alone, in 2 days. Our “greatest generation” of airmen killed tens of thousands of Japanese per day (and no leaflets were dropped advising civilians to leave the area). Sure, keep on denouncing the greedy, warlike Israelis; keep honoring the “greatest generation” and Winston Churchill. Many Jews will understand where you’re coming from, and I don’t mean (conscious) anti-Semitism. It’s headline-driven thinking; it’s context-free sermonizing; it’s selective outrage.

Two wrongs don’t make a right. Neither do two thousand wrongs. Nice try, but no dice. Israel stealing Palestinian land in the West Bank is still wrong, your attempted obfuscations and strained justifications cannot mask that fact.

Thankfully not all Israelis support the ongoing land theft. Some, in fact, actively oppose it:

Hagrit Ofran heads the Settlement Watch project of the Israeli organization Peace Now. She says it’s dangerous for Israel to take West Bank land right now — at the end of a war and with a proposal to restart peace talks looming.

“The message Palestinians might hear from Israel is that the only way to restrain Israeli settlement is by force. And that’s very, very dangerous,” Ofran says. “It makes the moderates of the Palestinians much, much weaker — and the chances for us to get to peace much, much harder.”

Unfortunately, at least for now, the majority of voters in Israel appear more than willing to continue to support the right-wing Likud-led government as it continues to steal more land in the West Bank, sabotaging any attempts to revive the peace process and strengthening the hand of Hamas.

When Israel complains that it is an innocent victim of Palestinian attacks, just remember, when you’re in the business of stealing land, you aren’t innocent, and shouldn’t act surprised when you’re attacked.

It would have been a lot easier if the Arabs hadn’t had some immunity to measles, whooping cough, and smallpox.

There’s an old French saying: When you purchase land, you carefully trace the land’s title back, until you get to the person who originally stole it.

But picking sides in a conflict based on the assumed moralities of the parties is a cop-out because morality is in the eye of the beholder. So self interest becomes the true deciding factor.

“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956

Fact is, the US simply has a much stronger cultural affiliation with founders of Israel than the natives of the British Mandate. As evidence, Israel was designated because its founders could lobby and petition for it and their promises/commitments were given high regard. Jordan/West Bank was created arbitrarily by a geopolitical deal between Britain and France alone and for their interests, with no consideration for or concern of input from the people there.

Come on, Eric — close down this thread. No one’s mind will be changed by anything that will be said. We are being treated to solemn pronouncements that “morality is in the eye of the beholder” (sure — that’s a bright commentary on the history of the 20th century, and solace to any diehard Nazi or Communist). We get only passing references (at most) to the Hamas Charter, and implications that Israel is somehow responsible for the threat represented by that anti-Semitic entity. This is all too reminiscent of the 1930s — the same excuses for fanatics, the same confusion of moral categories. It’s all quite distasteful, expressed by people who haven’t learned very much from history. I’m glad the Israelis have nukes — without them they’d be less secure and more likely to be coerced into making a peace deal with people who have shown no interest in co-existence. And anyone who disagrees with the previous sentence has only a cursory knowledge of the Mideast.

Anon 5:38, So your despairing of ever browbeating others to your opinion is ample justification to terminate any further expression of their opinion? Your solution to not agreeing is to shut off those you don’t agree with? And you appeal to Eric as a fellow traveler in that effort? Well, I disagree with Eric on some topics but would never dream he would act like a fascist, especially on my behalf. But apparently you think he would.

But you see no evidence for subjective assessment of morality even as you call for summary censorship of people who simply disagree with you? To quote John Boehmer “Are you kidding me?”

I agree that charters are important. Here’s a part of Likud’s platform of 1973, 14 years before Hamas was chartered. Any comment from you, oh great moralist?

“The Right of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel)

a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

b. A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a “Palestinian State,” jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace.”

“When Israel complains that it is an innocent victim of Palestinian attacks, just remember, when you’re in the business of stealing land, you aren’t innocent, and shouldn’t act surprised when you’re attacked.”

This is how I felt about our country following 9-11. This does not mean I support al qaeda tactics or hate America. It just means I understand what pushed them to retaliate against decades of backstabbing and abuse. All of which has nothing to do with me and my family. Yet instead of changing our behavior, we insist on ‘protecting’ ourselves by killing people. Over 150K people dead between Afghanistan and Iraq. I am deeply ashamed for the actions of my country in that conflict which did not protect me or my country. If any thing, it has increased violence among people in the mid-east and further worsened our reputation in the world.

If I was Israeli and of the same mind, I would feel the same way about Israel. However I also understand how powerful fear is, and Israel has been very effective at leading them into a ultra-right alley – much like the US after 9-11 who managed to elect W Bush for a second term.

A perfect illustration of why further discussion is pointless (except to stoke someone’s ego). “Fascist” as an adjective to describe the closing of a comments section on the internet? In that case, there are lots of fascists out there because I come across “comments section closed” just about every day. There are actually people who don’t find an interminable discussion worthwhile. There are newspapers that choose not to publish certain letters.— The Likud Party likened to Hamas? That makes sense only if one’s personality morality is as shallow as “different strokes for different folks.” Nowhere in an official Likud document will you find such absurdities as blaming the Jews for the French and Russian Revolutions, World Wars I and II, and the creation of the United Nations “in order to rule over the world.” And I could multiply the examples of similar statements. You might want to read the document yourself to learn what it says about Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs and other “secret organizations.” — And if morality is indeed “subjective,” then it makes no sense to discuss it. Different strokes for different strokes. Jews, Nazis, Hamas, Republicans, Greens —- choose your club. — I’m out of here.

Mitch – it’s going to take me longer than I thought to comment fairly on the wiki entry. It’s difficult reading for me because it seems like to try to see it from your view, it has been – de-propagandized.

Here is one of the first sentences that made me think, hmm, this seems to have a narrative with antagonists and protagonists.

“The following day, when most of the settlement’s men folk were away, fifty or sixty Arab villagers attacked Petach Tikva, vandalizing houses and fields and carrying off much of the livestock. Four Jews were injured and a fifth, an elderly woman with a heart condition, died four days later.”

Here are a couple of other similar wiki sights I found by clicking on the first links of the one you referenced.

I think the interesting story here will be to see how wiki is dealing with the obvious typed-word skirmishes they most be having to moderate.

I would point out the one major disadvantage for those fighting to protect Arab/Muslim rights would be, this conversation of justice is largely taking place in the language of English.

So to answer your question directly, so far the value for me is that you find valuable. It’s a starting place to understand the history that it seems is not tainted by the left’s anti-semitism. That in itself is a valuable starting point for a discussion.

One quip I have with the article – no mention of the US/Israeli unilateral voting in the UN throughout the 80’s and 90’s. We see one graphic on this from Nov. 2012 when the US and Israel joined with Canada lead by a conservative Prime Minister and the following coalition “Czech Republic, Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Panama “.

I think , Mitch, from previous comments you might see this often universal global reaction against many Israeli policies as evidence of global anti-semitism. I have not doubt there is truth to this. However I also believe there is a legitimate global renouncement of Israel’s unjust acquisition of land that are based on entirely just reasons (ie the Holocaust and pogroms and anti-semitism in many countries).

I think, again, this comes down to good vs. good. Of course there are bad actors in this process to include Iran, Hamas, and in my opinion anyone who resorts to violence or terrorism (outside of self-defence). It is not defensible and it is not productive. The Arab and Muslim world lost the wars in 1948 and 1967 – it’s now time to win the peace – for both sides.

Unfortunately, the winners continue to be exactly the people you and I would agree we don’t want to win – Likud and those to their right and Hamas and those to their right. The losers are those with liberal ideas like the exceptionalism of Arabs and Jews and their proven capability to live as neighbors.

It’s happened in Israel, and it’s happened in Turkey too where the moderate Islamist party the AKP and it’s leader Erdogan have been in power since Bush the II’s involvement in Iraq. In Turkey this is setting back a proud movement of secularization of government that started with Ataturk after WW I.

What? You haven’t shut this thread down yet Eric? Here* is an opinion piece in the NYT today that I find interesting if readers happened to miss Ted Cruz’s attempt to speak at a Middle Eastern Christian conference. Ross Douthat is a conservative columnist I like even if I don’t agree with him most of the time. I think Mitch might appreciate that Christians too are vying for victim status. Funny how that works – all victims no one to take responsibility.

Here is another on the anti-semitism in Europe which has of course been fomented recently by young Muslims reacting to international events, but also has a deeper and sinister vien within Europe and Europeans themselves.